In defense of public broadcasting — wide-ranging views, community service
Re: “I love public radio, but it shouldn’t get a federal subsidy,” July 27 commentary
Like most conservatives, columnist Krista Kafer presents a deceptive argument on the subject of public broadcasting. The abandonment of PBS and NPR funding has little to do with unbalanced reporting. It has more to do with the quality of information — and information has always been kryptonite to the interests of the right wing. The far right sees an informed public as a liability. The last thing they need is a Nova edition documenting man’s contribution to global warming, a concept that their leader describes as a hoax.
I strain to discern a bias when I listen to say, the Friday News Roundup on NPR’s 1A. I simply come away with a deeper understanding of the week’s stories. The conservative “The Devil’s Advocate” on PBS has been a staple for many years. And most of the programming on the public airwaves is not political, but cultural or educational: Nova, the Ken Burns documentaries, classical music, etc.
Public broadcasting will never be the darling of conservatives. But our democracy can only be enhanced by an information source that operates with a free hand, unencumbered by the bottom line of profitability.
Wrong, Krista, to confuse an investment with a subsidy.
Scott Newell, Denver
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shut down after being defunded by Congress, targeted by Trump
Thank you, Krista Kafer, for your thoughtful and well-expressed article regarding the reasons we should not be supporting biased news outlets with federal tax dollars — my tax dollars. Great common-sense article!
Barbara Peck, Aurora
Krista Kafer, like many well-meaning but ivory tower conservatives, supports using funding as a weapon. What percentage of PBS programming in small communities is focused on liberally biased news and how many locally sourced news and services will be cut off because conservatives are offended by news programming? Is the only way to influence the programming on PBS to punish Big Bird, emergency broadcasting, and small local stations? How many conservatives have promoted programming on PBS? Where are the William F. Buckley types, educated, informative and involved instead of wielding chainsaws?
Ms Kafer, I think you need to be haranguing your fellow conservatives to come up with programming that can compete with that provided by “liberals,” and get it on PBS. Whining because the other guys do better at keeping the audience’s interest is lame. One of the best features of the PBS Newshour is when they have guests of opposing viewpoints debating. We need more of that, not less.
A. Lynn Buschhoff, Denver
Krista Kafer obviously doesn’t “get the point” about public radio and public TV! It’s certainly not all about “anti/pro” political views. It’s a place where a listener/viewer can enjoy music, stories, and ideas objectively, as well as important weather and public safety information (all without annoying advertising).
My husband and I are a “two-party” couple, and on public radio and public TV, neither of us has been offended by “one-sided” political news coverage (about whoever happens to be the president in any given year or decade). I enjoy classical music on the radio. On RMPBS, my husband and I watch interesting and informative historical, scientific, and worldwide programs daily and nightly, without being bombarded by brainless game shows and canned-laughter “comedies.” Toddlers and children of all ages enjoy and learn from the children’s programs on RMPBS. None of our listening/watching has to do with politics.
You seem to be upset by descriptive words such as “unhoused”, “living wage” and “undocumented.” On the other hand, I am upset that a convicted felon was elected president, and I am required to pay taxes to support his extravagance and vanity.
Ms. Kafer, I hope sometime you have a moment to watch or listen to something interesting, educational, uplifting and non-political on the public channels (that someone else is kindly financing for you).
N.R.Kembel, Arvada
I think that PBS is “left-leaning” is a false narrative. Individuals who make this claim never provide an overview of broadcasts to support this. They have simply repeated this over and over until we have accepted it.
The subject matter and people interviewed at PBS cover a wide range of positions and generally represent a politically centered approach. The problem is that the Republican position has shifted so far to the right that their view of anything mainstream seems “left” to them. We shouldn’t accept their perspective that PBS is “left-leaning” any more than their other misshapen narratives.
Fred Buschhoff, Denver
Denver Post, consider some conservative leaders
Re: “Crow had good reason to inspect detention facility,” July 27 editorial
It is this leftist print media, (the Post) and voice-media, CPR (Colorado Public Radio), that has inspired and motivated people to find somewhere else to live rather than Colorado. You’ve succeeded in making this state unaffordable and intolerable (cost-of-living, criminal activity, weakened gun laws) with your constant propping up of such fake “military heroes” as Rep. Jason Crow. The latest example of your ability to misinform readers is the editorial last Sunday.
You called out and dismissed John Fabbricatore’s comment of “performative” in describing Crow’s action of showing up at the ICE Detention Center when it was operating with a skeleton crew only, on a weekend. What was Crow thinking? Typical of a second-rate politician.
The sooner the media backs off from its left-of-center stances and chooses to present a balanced report of what is happening in Colorado, the better. Then and only then will voters receive the truth.
This liberal mainstream media would do Colorado a favor by considering, for high office, such alternative leaders as Fabbricatore, Danielle Jurinsky, George Brauchler, Heidi Ganahl, and other more conservative-thinking individuals who consider common sense more important than victimhood.
Please wake up, Denver Post! Consider some right-of-center reporting and commentary besides your token, pretend-conservative Krista Kafer.
Bernadette Sonefeld, Aurora
Xcel ‘not ready for prime time’
Xcel recently announced that, starting in October, the mid-peak Time-of-Use rate will be eliminated and the highest rate, on-peak hours, will shift from 3 p.m. – 7 p.m. to 5 p.m. – 9 p.m. weekdays. This is a more tacit admission that two of the energy sources Xcel has chosen to prioritize for electric power generation are not ready for prime time, baseload grid support, and will lead to power delivery shortfalls. During this critical daily usage period, Xcel will not be able to deliver as promised to meet reasonable customer demand. Rather than shore up baseload power delivery capacity, Xcel instead continues resorting to price-based, energy usage behavior modification.
Given all the environmental quality improvements of the past 50+ years and the ongoing technological improvements in emissions reductions from traditional power generation platforms, this corporate admonishment to reduce electric power usage to less than reasonable standards is case closed proof Xcel is out of touch with a customer base that understands the benefits of energy conservation yet should not be expected to make up for power delivery shortfalls due to Xcel’s questionable decisions regarding energy sources for power generation.
Xcel’s announcement happened in concert with the US Department of Energy’s annual resource adequacy report, which cast an alarming pall on the state of domestic electric grid stability and reliability. This is primarily due to an unbalanced shift to new generation sources requiring 24/7 backup from traditional generation sources, which were too soon taken out of service based on specious assumptions about a trace atmospheric gas.
Douglass Croot, Highlands Ranch
Senseless deaths of shelter dogs
Re: “Zoo faces backlash after killing 12 healthy baboons,” July 30 news story
It’s interesting that there was a significant amount of protesting in Germany when a zoo killed 12 healthy baboons.
According to the ASPCA, Americans killed 1,600 shelter dogs a day last year. That is more than half a million bodies of dead dogs, that were healthy, every year in our country.
Only reason? We have no place for so many dogs to live. Shame on us.
Shame on us.
Bill Naylor, Denver
Modern technology in medicine can help rural patients
Re: “Colorado’s rural hospitals are failing – and so are our policy priorities,” July 12 commentary
Your recent article captured what so many in our state already know: Rural health care is on the brink. As a physician in Colorado Springs, I regularly see how limited access to care forces patients to delay treatment or travel long distances to get the services they need.
Protecting and maintaining the nonprofit tax-exempt status of rural hospitals is one solution. Another is modernizing our medicine. I’m thinking specifically of genetically targeted technologies (GTTs), advanced treatments that address disease at the genetic level instead of just managing symptoms.
For patients, GTTs offer something simple but powerful: fewer visits, fewer pills and better quality of life. Some require only one or two injections a year, replacing daily medications and helping patients stick with treatment even when providers are far away. For rural Coloradans, that can mean fewer miles traveled, better outcomes and more time with family.
GTTs already are reshaping how we treat conditions like high cholesterol and heart disease, two major drivers of health complications and early death in rural areas.
As we work to strengthen rural health care in Colorado, let’s make room for the kinds of breakthroughs that can meet patients where they are.
Kari Uusinarkaus, Colorado Springs
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.