Anonymous wrote:This is intolerable! Without NPR & PBS, people will have only ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, & hundreds of radio stations, magazines, & newspapers from which to get their fake news.

Plus, where are people going to get tote bags that proclaim their moral superiority without NPR & PBS??

Which Trump will sue to make sure they support him, like we are in North Korea.

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.

What does Trump know about rural or working people? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He would rather help billionaire sex traffickers than normal people.

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

Ask the mooch states which depends on tax from blue states.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve tried listening to other radio and tv news, but it’s so dumbed down. Maybe npr and pbs are too hard for the undereducated to understand, so they claim it’s biased. ?

Sounds like you skipped comparative lit.

This is the kind of drivel that made even normal liberals start to give NPR the stank eye- a segment claiming that white women use neutral nail polish to assert racial dominance. Bizarre. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1123445.page


Here is an example of bias. People who advocate for and support bills that make it illegal to surgically alter a child's reproductive organs do so because they believe that it protects the child. Indeed, study after study shows that gender dysphoria is both common and fleeting during puberty and adolescence, so it doesnt make sense to medically alter a child before they have time to determine whether they are really trans. Yet in the headline, NPR says such bills "target trans youth." One test of bias is whether both sides agree with a characterization and in this case they don't. It would be like describing people who favor early medical intervention as being in favor of "child genital mutilation." That sounds right to me, but the people who embrace that ideology truly believe they are not harming and in fact, protecting children. You cannot be considered unbiased unless the language is neutral and mutual enough that most people agree with the characterization.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1138396067/transgender-youth-bills-trans-sports

I’ve tried listening to other radio and tv news, but it’s so dumbed down. Maybe npr and pbs are too hard for the undereducated to understand, so they claim it’s biased. ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NPR is absurdly biased politically.

It never should have received public funding. Trump is merely correcting a longstanding wrong.

Help me understand this sentiment. Their news is not overwhelmingly biased. They have an in depth conversation about the news, interviewing people, and opinions on solutions are given toward the end. NPR is statist, as in they believe the state can solve many problems, but the opinion is not crammed down your throat like it is with cable news.

It’s so bizarre to me that people can’t understand these important differences.

You're not objective. There are organizations that rate media on bias and NPR is consistently considered leftist. At some point in the mid-2010s I had to stop listening to them because the bias was so intense. I switched to CNN.

Anonymous wrote:NPR is absurdly biased politically.

It never should have received public funding. Trump is merely correcting a longstanding wrong.

Help me understand this sentiment. Their news is not overwhelmingly biased. They have an in depth conversation about the news, interviewing people, and opinions on solutions are given toward the end. NPR is statist, as in they believe the state can solve many problems, but the opinion is not crammed down your throat like it is with cable news.

It’s so bizarre to me that people can’t understand these important differences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just sell commercial spots and survive in the marketplace like regular TV and radio?

With all the fundraising begging they do every hour as it is, I might as well be hearing commercials anyway.

Seriously though - if they can’t exist on their own, that’s an indication that they shouldn’t exist at all.

The idea is that they can be free to report what they want and it doesn't matter if Bob's Big House of Furniture likes it or not. And, there's an idea that it's for the public good, and we can/should have media that is not purely about what Bob's Big House of Furniture is will to pay for.

But they ARE NOT “free to report” what they want. Because if they made a trend of reporting anything that their overwhelmingly leftist listeners disagreed with, they’d get mad and they’d stop buying their Nina Toten-bags and doing monthly donations.

So NPR is just as beholden to market forces with regards to story selection as Fox News is.

Why can’t you just admit that?

One of those two paid a settlement in the hundreds of millions of dollars over lying about the 2020 election. And it was not NPR. So there's that little indicator of which one might have more reliable information.

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.

Except the inconvenient truth is that all these rural NPR stations are just rebroadcasting programming feeds from NPR production hubs in Boston, DC, LA, Chicago or NYC. There’s almost NO truly “local” news content on these stations each day. They’re just re-broadcasting All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, RadioLab, etc. They might do a few minutes each week of actual, locally created content. Other than that, it’s all NPR syndicated programming.

During the flooding events in Texas in early July, the local NPR station wasn’t even staffed when the flood warnings went out. They made no mention of it all because they were in automated overnight programming.

That’s how NPR is “serving” rural communities. By being a re-broadcast conduit for urban programming from big cities. A total failure of their duty to inform local communities.

Anonymous wrote:I listened to NPR today and it sounded like the far left wing government run media. No thanks. Its bad because imagine a far right wing govt run media sounds like some communist shit

Well, half this country wants a far left wing communist style government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just sell commercial spots and survive in the marketplace like regular TV and radio?

With all the fundraising begging they do every hour as it is, I might as well be hearing commercials anyway.

Seriously though - if they can’t exist on their own, that’s an indication that they shouldn’t exist at all.

The idea is that they can be free to report what they want and it doesn't matter if Bob's Big House of Furniture likes it or not. And, there's an idea that it's for the public good, and we can/should have media that is not purely about what Bob's Big House of Furniture is will to pay for.

But they ARE NOT “free to report” what they want. Because if they made a trend of reporting anything that their overwhelmingly leftist listeners disagreed with, they’d get mad and they’d stop buying their Nina Toten-bags and doing monthly donations.

So NPR is just as beholden to market forces with regards to story selection as Fox News is.

Why can’t you just admit that?

I listened to NPR today and it sounded like the far left wing government run media. No thanks. Its bad because imagine a far right wing govt run media sounds like some communist shit

NPR is absurdly biased politically.

It never should have received public funding. Trump is merely correcting a longstanding wrong.

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.

This is why democrats are losing people left and right. You genuinely believe that people who do not run in your social circle are uninformed and unintelligent. Keep looking down your elite noses at "flyover" country; it has served you sooooooo well thus far.

You do realize that rural areas do have internet, right? Everyone has a cellphone - everyone. Computers too!

The government does not need to subsidize buggy whips, oops, I mean radio, at $1 billion a year.

They exist for a reason, do you know there are still places without cell phone service, and people still use dial-up for internet connection? I bet they vote for GOP.

They also provide niche programs and services. These maga clowns don’t want anything that isn’t fed to them through a corporation. Then Trump said low information, he meant it.