First, the little people love being on TV asking Others to give up their hard earned,very costly area, little or lots money.
Save the Bay needs to do the same.
There is no way KQED can compare to the super show productive WGBH, etc. especially in the early years.
Why has KQED been so uncreative and unproductive historically?
And by KQED's own "History" admission, they were very busy buying and selling studios and frequently moving in the early days. But at a profit or loss with all that pubic funding? And why so many studios? It's not well explained.
The most shameful event was the cancelling of "newsroom", an innovative open discussion by smart experienced reporters at a round-table, that unfortunately some slimey oil company did not Sac. payola like. That was definitely a cancellation Not in the public interest. Sacramento is still smeared by way too much payola and the new "newsroom" is a tepid quarter-hearted attempt at best.
Then there is the issue of public TV cannibalism where KQED buys the smaller but competing Peninsula public TV channel and certainly it has been shown not for that station's or the area's benefit. Cannibalism, or "mergers and acquisitions" that reduce competition and disserve the public, are you For or Against?
How much do each show and series cost?
How Fat are the un-named position salaries?
What is the "public TV" balance sheet?
Curious distrusting minds want to know.
And the wonderful Bay Guardian newspaper is gone.
And I don't know 1 California politician I can trust to always tell the simple truth.
Special interest(real estate) poison burlingame and Capitola(?) and most cities, counties, and certainly this state.
Nobody cares, right?
So why are so many rich and super rich leaving their Estates to a second or third rate public TV station, the the Environment we live in needs desperately to be detoxified , cleaned up, and have SFBay treated as a true Asset instead of lots of cities raw sewage and industries poisons garbage trash and landfill dumping ground, like a fool Ass would do?