Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I forbade my children to watch PBS for its pro-LGBTQ stance, such as an episode of Arthur featuring a same-sex wedding.

That is unacceptable and contradicts what I have taught my children from the Bible: LGBTQ = sin; they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven but will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Have absolutely nothing to do with such people other than to rebuke and reprove them.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

I also refused to let them watch Sesame Street because I did not want my children emulating ignorant inner-city degenerate culture.

Do we need to get CPS involved? You sound like one of those people that ends up hurting their kids because they are possessed or something.

Or you are a troll.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children properly. PBS is unsuitable to be teaching children; therefore, it was expunged from my household.

I have found that people call troll those whose beliefs they disagree with.

Trump is a blessing. It is like he drove up in a huge garbage truck tossing PBS and USAID into the compacter. Next stop: taking it all to the dump where it belongs.

What precisely was unsuitable? My kids loved wild kratts and learning about animals. Curious George was a first tv show for both. Xavier riddle and The secret museum got them hooked into historical biographies. Watched endless amounts of dinosaur train and could still sing that song.

I love some of the shows focusing on American communities like “A Chef’s Life” that lifted up stories of a rural North Carolina community, their food traditions and history.

My kids loved “all creatures great and small” as they got a bit older. I hope to get them into Ken Burns “American revolution” this year as part the 250th celebrations.

I’d take PBS programming for kids over most streaming services any day.

I gladly pay for it and not worried about losing my station. Like everything else from Republicans, this cut will mostly screw over rural America.

Fox is controlled by Zionists, same as all other MSM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's that good, it can stand on its own, right?

NP, no it can’t. PBS stations don’t run advertising and what they air has education value and not commercial value. Many stations can survive via fund raising but in remote areas the money isn’t there.

The CEO of pbs lives in a mansion outside Roundhill.

Long overdue to let them stand on their own

There are a lot of rural communities like rural Kansas where public broadcasting is the only way they have to get local news, weather, high school sports, agricultural updates and so on. Smoky Hills PBS serves 1.2 Kansans over 71 counties. They are going to be gutted, losing half of their budget.

Seems Trump gives even less of a shit about rural "flyover country" than the democrats do.

Well then they should have been more responsible and reported the news such as high school sports and weather and ag reports; and avoided progressive nonsense.

I’m a former NPR listener who was shocked by how biased it had become in recent years. Can you imagine if a public radio had dared report with a conservative lens?

They 100% deserve this.

I love how conservatives are so f-d up, that you think reporting the facts is skewed and biased.

If the truth makes you think it's biased to the left, you really need to get your head out of your RWNJ ass.

Get over your self-righteous virtue signaling. You know that “truth” is not exclusive to progressive propaganda right? WSJ, financial times, the Economist are factual media publications that do a much better job reporting “news” than NPRs so called reporting on progressive and biased human interest stories.

You’re just as brainwashed as the RWNJs that you lambast, just in the other direction. You lost critical thinking ability ; it’s easier to ad hominem attack people with a different position as RWNJ than consider that your team has misstepped. Sad.

Wow. You are out of touch.

We would just LOVE it if MAGAs were actually influenced by WSJ, Financial Times, the Economist and so on, and guess what - we read those too. But unfortunately 99% of what comes from the right wing these days completely ignores WSJ, Economist and so on and in fact the MAGA movement is even calling WSJ "leftist propaganda" these days. Instead, they get their "news" from Newsmax, Gateway Pundit and other trash outlets.

You have no idea what right-wing thought leaders are saying right now. The publications above are completely out of touch with the new ideas energizing the right, and it has nothing to do with Newsmax.

The new right wing will be led by people who have 3 qualities: 1) high IQ, 2) low neuroticism, and 3) high openness. The last quality is the hardest for the left to understand. These people often were highly liberal a few years ago, but their openness to debate and facts has led them to understand the causal variables behind liberalism's failures. My friends on the left aren't open to these ideas (really facts) and work hard to ban them wherever they control discourse. It's starting to fade already and in interesting ways.

Delulu! Did people really believe this drivel?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"In a stunning blow to one of America’s most storied news networks, CNN suffered a dramatic collapse in viewership in July 2025, recording its lowest primetime ratings in history. Nielsen data reveals that CNN’s primetime lineup (8–11 p.m.) averaged a mere 497,000 total viewers, a catastrophic 42% drop from July 2024. The figures mark a steep decline for the network, which trailed far behind competitors MSNBC and Fox News, despite a news cycle packed with major political developments and global crises."


https://cordcuttersnews.com/cnns-viewership-hits-historic-low-in-july-2025-disastrously-bad-former-cnn-staff-say/

MSNBC cornered the market on fake news. There is no market for CNN's attempts to be slightly less fake.

FOX goggles, eh?

Anonymous wrote:"In a stunning blow to one of America’s most storied news networks, CNN suffered a dramatic collapse in viewership in July 2025, recording its lowest primetime ratings in history. Nielsen data reveals that CNN’s primetime lineup (8–11 p.m.) averaged a mere 497,000 total viewers, a catastrophic 42% drop from July 2024. The figures mark a steep decline for the network, which trailed far behind competitors MSNBC and Fox News, despite a news cycle packed with major political developments and global crises."


https://cordcuttersnews.com/cnns-viewership-hits-historic-low-in-july-2025-disastrously-bad-former-cnn-staff-say/

MSNBC cornered the market on fake news. There is no market for CNN's attempts to be slightly less fake.

Anonymous wrote:Not one red cent of my tax dollars for the pinko commies parading around as news.

By the way, how old are you? I haven't heard anyone talking like this outside of a retirement home. Makes sense in their case.

Anonymous wrote:Not one red cent of my tax dollars for the pinko commies parading around as news.

They can have my pennies and most other people agree.

I think we aren’t pretending to be a democracy anymore.

Not one red cent of my tax dollars for the pinko commies parading around as news.

Anonymous wrote:"In a stunning blow to one of America’s most storied news networks, CNN suffered a dramatic collapse in viewership in July 2025, recording its lowest primetime ratings in history. Nielsen data reveals that CNN’s primetime lineup (8–11 p.m.) averaged a mere 497,000 total viewers, a catastrophic 42% drop from July 2024. The figures mark a steep decline for the network, which trailed far behind competitors MSNBC and Fox News, despite a news cycle packed with major political developments and global crises."


https://cordcuttersnews.com/cnns-viewership-hits-historic-low-in-july-2025-disastrously-bad-former-cnn-staff-say/

Fox tells fairy tales fir the MAGA crowd and elderly.

CNN is a sell out

I'd actually like the news

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely untrue

We love PBS at our house and we aren’t that much of an outlier.

GOP is too scared to take an actual vote and see how much of America wants to support the CPB.

Just like abortion, it's rule of the minority for them.

This is the case.

Trumpers are not the majority no matter how much they bleat "Mandate!"

Regardless, my area still will have PBS. It's the rurals who won't.

"In a stunning blow to one of America’s most storied news networks, CNN suffered a dramatic collapse in viewership in July 2025, recording its lowest primetime ratings in history. Nielsen data reveals that CNN’s primetime lineup (8–11 p.m.) averaged a mere 497,000 total viewers, a catastrophic 42% drop from July 2024. The figures mark a steep decline for the network, which trailed far behind competitors MSNBC and Fox News, despite a news cycle packed with major political developments and global crises."


https://cordcuttersnews.com/cnns-viewership-hits-historic-low-in-july-2025-disastrously-bad-former-cnn-staff-say/

Anonymous wrote:This is simple economics. PBS and NPR bring zero value added to its listenership. The only real constituency for these outlets are people directly connected with and benefitting from their continued existence, and members of the white urban Northeast liberal elite. That's a tiny number of people.

Anyone who wants to hear their message can get it online through numerous now available speakers that simply didn't exist 10 15 20 years ago. Besides they just parrot much of the same content as is readily available online from the WaPo, NYTimes, Mother Jones, etc.


Like Colbert, NPR and PBS have outlived their economic liability.

Maybe Colbert could move his show to PBS and save it. I am sad that PBS getting eviscerated but the threat has been there for a long time. Do they really have no contingency plans?

They really do fill a niche for stories worth telling. Not everything worth telling needs to make a profit (though it does need revenue).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's that good, it can stand on its own, right?

NP, no it can’t. PBS stations don’t run advertising and what they air has education value and not commercial value. Many stations can survive via fund raising but in remote areas the money isn’t there.

The CEO of pbs lives in a mansion outside Roundhill.

Long overdue to let them stand on their own

There are a lot of rural communities like rural Kansas where public broadcasting is the only way they have to get local news, weather, high school sports, agricultural updates and so on. Smoky Hills PBS serves 1.2 Kansans over 71 counties. They are going to be gutted, losing half of their budget.

Seems Trump gives even less of a shit about rural "flyover country" than the democrats do.

Well then they should have been more responsible and reported the news such as high school sports and weather and ag reports; and avoided progressive nonsense.

I’m a former NPR listener who was shocked by how biased it had become in recent years. Can you imagine if a public radio had dared report with a conservative lens?

They 100% deserve this.

I love how conservatives are so f-d up, that you think reporting the facts is skewed and biased.

If the truth makes you think it's biased to the left, you really need to get your head out of your RWNJ ass.

Get over your self-righteous virtue signaling. You know that “truth” is not exclusive to progressive propaganda right? WSJ, financial times, the Economist are factual media publications that do a much better job reporting “news” than NPRs so called reporting on progressive and biased human interest stories.

You’re just as brainwashed as the RWNJs that you lambast, just in the other direction. You lost critical thinking ability ; it’s easier to ad hominem attack people with a different position as RWNJ than consider that your team has misstepped. Sad.

Wow. You are out of touch.

We would just LOVE it if MAGAs were actually influenced by WSJ, Financial Times, the Economist and so on, and guess what - we read those too. But unfortunately 99% of what comes from the right wing these days completely ignores WSJ, Economist and so on and in fact the MAGA movement is even calling WSJ "leftist propaganda" these days. Instead, they get their "news" from Newsmax, Gateway Pundit and other trash outlets.

You have no idea what right-wing thought leaders are saying right now. The publications above are completely out of touch with the new ideas energizing the right, and it has nothing to do with Newsmax.

The new right wing will be led by people who have 3 qualities: 1) high IQ, 2) low neuroticism, and 3) high openness. The last quality is the hardest for the left to understand. These people often were highly liberal a few years ago, but their openness to debate and facts has led them to understand the causal variables behind liberalism's failures. My friends on the left aren't open to these ideas (really facts) and work hard to ban them wherever they control discourse. It's starting to fade already and in interesting ways.

Sure, sure, "openness to debate" is just code for "someone was mean to me online and now I will burn it all down." High IQ gives up the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's that good, it can stand on its own, right?

NP, no it can’t. PBS stations don’t run advertising and what they air has education value and not commercial value. Many stations can survive via fund raising but in remote areas the money isn’t there.

The CEO of pbs lives in a mansion outside Roundhill.

Long overdue to let them stand on their own

There are a lot of rural communities like rural Kansas where public broadcasting is the only way they have to get local news, weather, high school sports, agricultural updates and so on. Smoky Hills PBS serves 1.2 Kansans over 71 counties. They are going to be gutted, losing half of their budget.

Seems Trump gives even less of a shit about rural "flyover country" than the democrats do.

Well then they should have been more responsible and reported the news such as high school sports and weather and ag reports; and avoided progressive nonsense.

I’m a former NPR listener who was shocked by how biased it had become in recent years. Can you imagine if a public radio had dared report with a conservative lens?

They 100% deserve this.

I love how conservatives are so f-d up, that you think reporting the facts is skewed and biased.

If the truth makes you think it's biased to the left, you really need to get your head out of your RWNJ ass.

Get over your self-righteous virtue signaling. You know that “truth” is not exclusive to progressive propaganda right? WSJ, financial times, the Economist are factual media publications that do a much better job reporting “news” than NPRs so called reporting on progressive and biased human interest stories.

You’re just as brainwashed as the RWNJs that you lambast, just in the other direction. You lost critical thinking ability ; it’s easier to ad hominem attack people with a different position as RWNJ than consider that your team has misstepped. Sad.

Wow. You are out of touch.

We would just LOVE it if MAGAs were actually influenced by WSJ, Financial Times, the Economist and so on, and guess what - we read those too. But unfortunately 99% of what comes from the right wing these days completely ignores WSJ, Economist and so on and in fact the MAGA movement is even calling WSJ "leftist propaganda" these days. Instead, they get their "news" from Newsmax, Gateway Pundit and other trash outlets.

You have no idea what right-wing thought leaders are saying right now. The publications above are completely out of touch with the new ideas energizing the right, and it has nothing to do with Newsmax.

The new right wing will be led by people who have 3 qualities: 1) high IQ, 2) low neuroticism, and 3) high openness. The last quality is the hardest for the left to understand. These people often were highly liberal a few years ago, but their openness to debate and facts has led them to understand the causal variables behind liberalism's failures. My friends on the left aren't open to these ideas (really facts) and work hard to ban them wherever they control discourse. It's starting to fade already and in interesting ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's that good, it can stand on its own, right?

NP, no it can’t. PBS stations don’t run advertising and what they air has education value and not commercial value. Many stations can survive via fund raising but in remote areas the money isn’t there.

The CEO of pbs lives in a mansion outside Roundhill.

Long overdue to let them stand on their own

There are a lot of rural communities like rural Kansas where public broadcasting is the only way they have to get local news, weather, high school sports, agricultural updates and so on. Smoky Hills PBS serves 1.2 Kansans over 71 counties. They are going to be gutted, losing half of their budget.

Seems Trump gives even less of a shit about rural "flyover country" than the democrats do.

Thanks for info about Smoky Hills.

Forgot this local station. https://www.adastraradio.com/platforms/rock-955/