So long npr and pbs

8,653 Views | 121 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by LMCane
El Gallo Blanco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

Republicans have been griping about this for decades. Those orgs are practically communist they tilt so far left. Trump is the first to actually do anything about it.

God bless him. This is what I voted for. It's in the sig.
I'll be honest, I do miss Mr. Rogers (that bigot who preached that girls and girls and boys are boys)...and I miss old school Sesame Street. But I am sick of Sesame Street's obsession with bringing on same sex couples as guests and recurring characters. 90% of the time it's an amazing show for toddlers, and far superior to so much of the crap out there that they are drawn to, but then 10% of the time, you just hope that they are not bright enough to realize that the two lesbians talking to Oscar the Grouch are wife and wife, and not just friends.

I can kind of sympathize with the argument that "well, these couples DO exist, so can they NEVER be portrayed?"...but the frequency with which these shows have on gay couples is vastly disprpoprtionate compared to reality. On purpose.

We will not watch Sesame Street or Daniel Tiger again until they stop trying to confuse small children with this sh**.
El Gallo Blanco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hullabaloonatic said:

techno-ag said:

Republicans have been griping about this for decades. Those orgs are practically communist they tilt so far left. Trump is the first to actually do anything about it.

God bless him. This is what I voted for. It's in the sig.


Republican Party leaders have been griping about this because they know an uneducated populace allows them to govern more freely. Trump Shutting down PBS, defunding DOE, supporting private vs public funding, etc are all a part of the plan to reduce the number of educated individuals in our country.
LOL, someone from the warped and perverted democrat faith calling others "uneducated". Your best and brightest are completely perplexed by the question "what is a woman", thinks men can get preggers and chest feed, believe "Gender Queer" is appropriate for 7 yr olds, and think men belong in womens' sports, locker rooms and showers.

It's a freakshow comprised of complete and utter brainwashed unatics.

Also, since the founding of the DOE have math scores and literacy rates improved or have they plummeted?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
richardag said:

nortex97 said:



It's really quite ironic to think 'we need state media to tell us the state is racist.'

Screw NPR/PBS.
The statement in the Declaration of Independence they are probably referring to is,"merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions".

This statement is demonstrably true. Some Indian tribes at that time would completely destroy opposing tribes or settlements ensuring not a single man woman or child survives. That is by definition savage and merciless..
A quick death was a mercy for some tribes (but, not all tribes, obviously). The torture that Comanches' would put captives through would make a Nazi scientist blush.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Hey Nav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I would add Firing Line with William F. Buckley.
Forgot that one. Good one!
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Neither should get a dime of taxpayer money.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
93MarineHorn said:

eric76 said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:

Is there really any such thing as "non-biased"? It seems no matter ho something is reported, someone will take issue with it.

If they can't be unbiased, they can live without my dollars. Or not. I hope they all lose their jobs.
Funding should depend much less on whether or not they are biased than on whether or not the funding is for a Constitutional activity.
Of course the activity is Constitutional. I don't see how this is a Constitutional issue. If the law or rule that funds NPR demands political neutrality then they are CLEARLY violating that rule.
Just where does the Constitution authorize spending money on a television/radio network?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Oh, so now they love the 1st amendment.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
She should shut her pie hole and resign. She's a terrible human and she needs to get a job.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hullabaloonatic said:

techno-ag said:

Republicans have been griping about this for decades. Those orgs are practically communist they tilt so far left. Trump is the first to actually do anything about it.

God bless him. This is what I voted for. It's in the sig.


Republican Party leaders have been griping about this because they know an uneducated populace allows them to govern more freely. Trump Shutting down PBS, defunding DOE, supporting private vs public funding, etc are all a part of the plan to reduce the number of educated individuals in our country.


Agreed. This will be a huge setback to inner city communities who rely on NPR and PBS to educate their children due to the failure of public school systems.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thought I would post this which is directly from the NPR website:

Quote:

Governments around the world created publicly funded media systems to fill information needs that would not be met by commercial media, including:

- Delivering news to regions that are so remote, small or rural that it would not be profitable for a commercial newsroom.
- Covering topics like public affairs programming and international news, that are not reliably attractive to advertisers or subscribers.
- Covering communities that have been traditionally ignored by mainstream news organizations.


In the United States, Congress created and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967, to support a system of local radio and television stations, who would in turn support PBS and NPR, which would create national content that could be distributed to the local stations.

But that funding was never enough to sustain the whole system. Where the British government spends close to $100 a year per citizen on the BBC, the United States spends $1.50 per citizen on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Pickard said.

As a result, American public media turns to three other funding sources: corporate sponsorships, large philanthropic organizations and "donors like you."


Keeping in mind this model was created before the advent of the internet the three bullets above are obsolete now that technology has conquered the connectivity moat that previously existed. In addition, information has been democratized and diversified more than at any point in history. We can argue the pros and cons of that in another thread.

So, in reality, NPR is actually more of a subsidiary and leech of the CPB the latter of which was created and funded by Congress. NPR's mission was to basically cover the national and international component of news while the CPB handled local coverage. Considering the state of the industry now, there is zero reason for any direct funding of NPR (the 1% number), period. Furthermore, CPB has to pay license fees back to NPR for the national/international content which is also a revenue stream for NPR. This should be killed as well as individuals can simply visit one of millions of news organization on the web to get the national/international news they want.

CPB focused more on local / educational programming and less "news" which is fine. Let individuals get their own news without the potential propaganda influence by a government.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
State media is really only useful in places that are totalitarian/fascist countries in the 21st century (Cuba/North Korea/Russia/Ukraine/China etc).

It's really fairly embarrassing we still have one here, let alone that it is an entirely communist outfit, and unrepentant about it.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YouBet said:

Thought I would post this which is directly from the NPR website:

Quote:

Governments around the world created publicly funded media systems to fill information needs that would not be met by commercial media, including:

- Delivering news to regions that are so remote, small or rural that it would not be profitable for a commercial newsroom.
- Covering topics like public affairs programming and international news, that are not reliably attractive to advertisers or subscribers.
- Covering communities that have been traditionally ignored by mainstream news organizations.


In the United States, Congress created and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967, to support a system of local radio and television stations, who would in turn support PBS and NPR, which would create national content that could be distributed to the local stations.

But that funding was never enough to sustain the whole system. Where the British government spends close to $100 a year per citizen on the BBC, the United States spends $1.50 per citizen on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Pickard said.

As a result, American public media turns to three other funding sources: corporate sponsorships, large philanthropic organizations and "donors like you."


Keeping in mind this model was created before the advent of the internet the three bullets above are obsolete now that technology has conquered the connectivity moat that previously existed. In addition, information has been democratized and diversified more than at any point in history. We can argue the pros and cons of that in another thread.

So, in reality, NPR is actually more of a subsidiary and leech of the CPB the latter of which was created and funded by Congress. NPR's mission was to basically cover the national and international component of news while the CPB handled local coverage. Considering the state of the industry now, there is zero reason for any direct funding of NPR (the 1% number), period. Furthermore, CPB has to pay license fees back to NPR for the national/international content which is also a revenue stream for NPR. This should be killed as well as individuals can simply visit one of millions of news organization on the web to get the national/international news they want.

CPB focused more on local / educational programming and less "news" which is fine. Let individuals get their own news without the potential propaganda influence by a government.

I thought the Brits were subjects, not citizens.
Trump will fix it.
Hey Nav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser on PBS WAS a service that benefited the American people, educating the masses on the stock market, investing, and the world of business. His guests included some of the Titans of business and investing.

And...his puns were great :-)

It was such a highlight to actually meet him at a talk he was giving (in Anchorage, of all places). He was very polite and pleasant, and took plenty of time talking to a young Air Force 1LT about national defense and defense spending, hunting in Alaska, and a few other topics.

Try to watch 3 minutes of this clip. I shows that there was some worth for PBS.

Burdizzo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The sad part is that shows like Wall Street Week, McLaughlin Group, and Firing Line are long gone. Nightly Business Report* is a shell of itself since Paul Kangas left. A viewer would be hard pressed to find similar programming on PBS today.


* I had not watched NBR in about 10 years. I didn't realize it was gone too.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigRobSA said:

"Women and minorities hardest hit"!
That always cracks me up...

Media: In billions of years, the Sun will turn into a red giant and incinerate the Earth. Women and minorities hardest hit!!!!
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

93MarineHorn said:

eric76 said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:

Is there really any such thing as "non-biased"? It seems no matter ho something is reported, someone will take issue with it.

If they can't be unbiased, they can live without my dollars. Or not. I hope they all lose their jobs.
Funding should depend much less on whether or not they are biased than on whether or not the funding is for a Constitutional activity.
Of course the activity is Constitutional. I don't see how this is a Constitutional issue. If the law or rule that funds NPR demands political neutrality then they are CLEARLY violating that rule.
Just where does the Constitution authorize spending money on a television/radio network?


It does, at the state level, not federally. Is not an enumerated power.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this will never get tiring!

Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media (Trump EO Tracker)

Thursday, May 1, 2025

Instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Board of Directors and all executive departments and agencies to cease Federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.