To reference images from other websites within your posts, simply right-click (desktop), or hold your finger over (mobile devices), the image and select to copy the link. You can then copy-paste this link within your post. When viewing the post, it will be automatically hyperlinked directly to the image.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
https://apnews.com/article/corporation-for-public-...
Roughly 70% of the corporation’s money went directly to 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country. The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it’s likely some won’t survive. NPR’s president estimated as many as 80 NPR stations may close in the next year.
Mississippi Public Broadcasting has already decided to eliminate a streaming channel that airs children’s programming like “Caillou” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood” 24 hours a day.
Maine’s public media system is looking at a hit of $2.5 million, or about 12% of its budget, for the next fiscal year. The state’s rural residents rely heavily on public media for weather updates and disaster alerts.
In Kodiak, Alaska, KMXT estimated the cuts would slice 22% from its budget. Public radio stations in the sprawling, heavily rural state often provide not just news but alerts about natural disasters like tsunamis, landslides and volcanic eruptions.
No. of Recommendations: 24
Roughly 70% of the corporation’s money went directly to 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country. The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it’s likely some won’t survive. NPR’s president estimated as many as 80 NPR stations may close in the next year.
You and I look at this as a loss, but the administration sees it as a win. Less NPR and less PBS means people - especially rurals will have fewer media choices, particularly those which give the alternate reality outlets (Fox, radio talk shows, etc) any kind of balance.
So don’t think they care. This is a MAGA victory, not a “public loss.” Obviously it’s the opposite of that, but this is the world we’re in now.
No. of Recommendations: 3
So don’t think they care. This is a MAGA victory, not a “public loss.” Obviously it’s the opposite of that, but this is the world we’re in now.
-----------------------
I don't know if most MAGA think this way, but as for me I would be equally happy about the defunding if the CPB/PBS biased right. The government has no business being in the new business in the first place. Maybe historically news voids were prevalent, but the are so many sources available today, an official government news channel is unnecessary.
More then unnecessary, it presents an attractive vector for abuse given the tribal political climate we seem to be stuck with.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I remember these same people confidently saying that NPR’s budget from the government is tiny - it’s not critical!
Whaddya know. They weren’t telling the truth.
No. of Recommendations: 16
I remember these same people confidently saying that NPR’s budget from the government is tiny - it’s not critical!
The entity closing down is PBS, which received a larger percentage of its operating budget from government funding.
NPR is still afloat, but I anticipate Trump will attempt to sue it into compliance or nonexistence.
And you will cheer while proclaiming yourself a champion of press freedom.
No. of Recommendations: 4
The entity closing down is PBS, which received a larger percentage of its operating budget from government funding.
No, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is shutting down. Not PBS, which owns the Sesame Street IP and should be fine.
Nobody uses NPR for weather warnings. That’s another tall tale from the left.
And so is the notion that NPR is unbiased. They’re among the worst of the worst. If you like it, you can find it. The rest of us are saying “nah, bruv”. There’s plenty of left wing drivel that can be had for zero taxpayer dollars.
No. of Recommendations: 4
NPR is still afloat, but I anticipate Trump will attempt to sue it into compliance or nonexistence.
------------------
Trump doesn't need to do anything. Let NPR start marketing to advertisers who want access to NPR's demographic. NPR can remain in existence for as long as it can cover it's expenses. No big deal either way if they fold or not fold.
No. of Recommendations: 4
NPR can remain in existence for as long as it can cover it's expenses. No big deal either way if they fold or not fold.
And this is the way it should be. Let all the libs who brag about how much money they send to liberal causes fund the left wing leaning NPR. The rest of us aren’t going to.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump doesn't need to do anything. Let NPR start marketing to advertisers who want access to NPR's demographic.
With that comes loss of editorial independence. NPR’s financial base has always been its donors/listeners.
I’ll send another contribution today.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I’ll send another contribution today.
Great. You and the rest pay for All Things Distorted.
We both know that this board the second the Dems get back in power will push hard for them to get on to taxpayer money again.
No. of Recommendations: 23
With that comes loss of editorial independence.
I always liked the idea that there was at least one outlet that wasn’t beholden to RJ Reynolds Tobacco, McDonald’s, Kellogg’s Cocoa Puffs, or McDonald’s.
But I guess that’s a luxury that only England, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, Spain, Canada, multiple countries in Africa and Asia can afford but we can’t. Guess we’ll have to put that in the pile with other crazy ideas like universal health care and such.
No. of Recommendations: 4
With that comes loss of editorial independence. NPR’s financial base has always been its donors/listeners.
And it still will.
They’ll be free of any right leaning voices - just like they are today!
But let’s note the left’s collective love of government media. That works out so well.
No. of Recommendations: 12
MBFC:
Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and accurate news reporting.
They aren't nearly as left of center as you probably think, Dope. Every once in a while I listen to them. When I was young I associated NPR with DEATH, it was for old folks - perfectly modulated voices, etc. And if you stayed up late, just before the TV signed off, you could see Lyndon Larouche on the Gov TV where I was. So the wee hours of the morning were for crackpots. Now crackpots are mainstream. NPR is still death, and in my old age I may be watching the republic sink.
No. of Recommendations: 4
They aren't nearly as left of center as you probably think, Dope.
lol. Yes they are. My favorite stunt of theirs is this:
1. Invite a Republican on
2. Ask a bunch of leading questions
3. Thank the Republican
4. Invite a democrat on to say “everything that guy just said is crazy” with the host’s approval.
The Republic will. It sink if a bunch of liberals start losing their structural advantage. If anything, it’ll get stronger.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They’ll be free of any right leaning voices - just like they are today!
Now you just told me they invite Republicans on, so which is it?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Now you just told me they invite Republicans on, so which is it?
Inviting a Republican on merely to ridicule their position isn’t “having right wing voice”.
But you’re to be forgiven here because to the left, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
Were there an equal playing field the democrats would be toast. Across the board.
No. of Recommendations: 5
More then unnecessary, it presents an attractive vector for abuse given the tribal political climate we seem to be stuck with.
Ironically, most entities that chart political leanings and accuracy place NPR (and Frontline) as one of the most accurate, and only slightly left of center. If people want real reporting they can rely upon, that was it. And Frontline did deep dives, not superficial coverage with a crawler at the bottom of the screen.
They also produce such wonderful programming as NOVA (which isn't political at all).
I agree that govt doesn't belong in the new business, but they really weren't. Not like Pravda was (for example). It was like saying the government was involved in medical care because it funded Medicare. No...the doctors (which you can choose) run the medical care, govt just funds it. Same with CPB/PBS. They funded it (partially), they didn't run it. They also receive a lot of funding from viewers (like me...I have a recurring contribution, and have had for years).
No. of Recommendations: 4
Ironically, most entities that chart political leanings and accuracy place NPR (and Frontline) as one of the most accurate, and only slightly left of center. If people want real reporting they can rely upon, that was it. - 1pg
------------------
It may come as a surprise but I listen to a lot of NPR. No music, no sports. When I am driving I am listening to NPR almost exclusively. They are much more left than you realize or are willing to admit. I will say that in general their left leaning expert panels are usually polite and can articulate actual arguments for what the espouse. Nothing like screaming Corey Booker or the nose ringed activists we see on cable TV.
No. of Recommendations: 25
But to the radical right, any analysis of J6 that suggests it was more than a picnic gone awry, pegs the news source as radical left.
Facts have a liberal bias- not because facts are inherently liberal, but because the far right has ceded factual reality to the left.
The far right has its own “reality”, in which, for instance, a BLS director who dares to publish the statistical facts of unemployment will be fired for contradicting Trump’s economic happy talk.
“Off with their heads!”
Facts are now left wing propaganda- across the board, data aggregators who work for the government arr being purged.
From this point forward, nothing coming from this government deserves to be trusted, any more that agricultural and economic data released by the Soviets deserved to be trusted…. for the same reasons.
No. of Recommendations: 5
They also produce such wonderful programming as NOVA (which isn't political at all). - 1pg
---------------------
I like NOVA too. especially the astronomy and physics stuff. But labeling NOVA not political at all is too generous. There is a lot of climate alarmism embedded in their programming.
No. of Recommendations: 12
They aren't nearly as left of center as you probably think,
I wonder how many "left of center" news outlets are that way simply because they report facts. The "right of center" outlets seem to spin the Trump/MAGA lies as opinion instead of calling them the lies they are. And the further right outlets don't even bother with that - they sell lies as truth. So much so that they end up being successfully sued for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 4
There is a lot of climate alarmism embedded in their programming.
A lot of that "climate alarmism" has become reality, not fiction. It is "An Inconvenient Truth" the right may not like, but it is not going to "go away" anytime soon. They can run, but they can't hide, from Mother Nature. And they are finding THAT out first hand.
No. of Recommendations: 4
3. Thank the Republican
4. Invite a democrat on to say “everything that guy just said is crazy” with the host’s approval.
Isn't it more like have a regular person fact check the lies the Republican told? And isn't it usually the Republican lies for 10 minutes, and then we get a 45 second explanation of the untruths told? And if they do that, they do commentary on Dems too. I'm usually not listening to NPR unless I'm in the car, and I turn it off so I'm not distracted.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Isn't it more like have a regular person fact check the lies the Republican told? And isn't it usually the Republican lies for 10 minutes
Thank you for perfectly illustrating the liberal bubble, NPR’s role in it, and why they shouldn’t receive another nickel of taxpayer money.
PS. democrats have bad body odor.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Dope1: lol. Yes they are. My favorite stunt of theirs is this:
1. Invite a Republican on
2. Ask a bunch of leading questions
3. Thank the Republican
4. Invite a democrat on to say “everything that guy just said is crazy” with the host’s approval.
You boasted in another post of providing a link (you seldom provide links) so please provide three links to transcripts that demonstrate your claim. I don't listen to NPR much anymore but when I did I never heard them doing what you claim. Perhaps they've changed. If so, no doubt you'll have no trouble backing up your accusation.
BTW, Trump is a pedophile.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They are much more left than you realize or are willing to admit.
I think that's a matter of your own perspective/vantage. That's why I mentioned outlet charting. It's not my opinion, or your opinion. It's a conglomeration of data to create that rating chart. Not perfect, no doubt. But at least some of the bias of the individual is removed.
To illustrate, to a European there is no liberal party in the USA. The Dems would be slightly right of center on most things. The "liberal" parties in Europe would be labeled "radical liberals" here. MAGA -likely- would be labeled "fascist" in Europe.
That's why I prefer to rely on graphs that use a lot of data to rate bias and accuracy. It minimizes the "vantage point" bias.
No. of Recommendations: 15
There is a lot of climate alarmism embedded in their programming.
Again, it's vantage point. You -apparently- have already decided that climate change is "alarmism" and/or bogus. Sort of like a YEC watching a NOVA program on evolution...you're not going to accept it as valid no matter what they tell you.
NOVA is not political. It lays out the science in such a way that a layman can -usually- grasp it. My only complaint is that sometimes they dumb it down too much. But that is from the vantage point of a person with a graduate degree in physics. It's actually good that they do that, otherwise only people like me would understand it. I get that.
Perhaps you should reconsider your position on climate change, or at least really process what they are telling you in the NOVA programs to see if maybe your opinion is wrong. They put actual scientists specializing in relevant fields on their programs. I mean no offense by this, but your opinion is not "just as valid" as their facts and data. (Mine isn't either, nor is anyone else's. Science doesn't care about yours or my opinion. A person is either willing to learn new things, or they are only seeking confirmation of their prior opinion. I try to be the former.)
No. of Recommendations: 8
