Kqed Public Tv-Sa Francisco

**Their November — December fund raising campaign ran for SIX weekends, and on weekdays for two weeks. Plus some occasional weekend snips for about 2 more weeks. Same glibb, boring general manager and broad president, with same boring presentations usually pre-​recorded. In addition, their programming was dominated by inane programs that promoted, often repeated, where the presenters (and KQED staff) hustled their private business, and allowed KQED a large block of time to hustle its fundraising.
**They «don’t advertise». Note the long ads for corporate sponsors.
**They don’t have the great majority of British programs on «On Demand». They repeat some of these programs in their active programming, for whatever dim reason they have; and often never show the older years of some series (particularly KQED 10),
**Their daytime programming is mostly kids. Is «retiree» some dirty word?
I’m familiar with several US public stations, and have never seen a more amateurish, poorly managed system, basically unresponsive to the public. I despise «ad t.v.», where ads dominate up to ¹⁄₃ of the time (depending on advertising demand). I really hope that when KQED comes up for review by government funders, they will either be held to higher standards, or lose some of their several channels and be restricted in broadcast areas. Like WNYC, their major focus is expansion and domination of growing areas and airwaves, and glorifying their deficient staff and Boards.