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.

---

Oh my.

Has the term "useful idiot" ever crossed your desk? Because that's what we get with the quality of education in this country, which of course is lorded over by Democrats.

Total waste of Taxpayer Money! Serves up nothing more than leftist talking points for the dumbed down democrats in society.

Can we take away their tax exempt status, too?

Wouldn't these big government advocates love to pay more towards government functions?

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.

---

You are not fooling anybody here.

sam callahan said:

---

Can we take away their tax exempt status, too?

Wouldn't these big government advocates love to pay more towards government functions?

---

Wouldn't that be a given?

Wow https://t.co/h6IHX0hDAN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2025

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

Screw NPR/PBS.

BusterAg said:

---

CPB was established by congress in 1976, and NPR/PBS was established by congress under the power of the CPB.

After the loss against the CFPB, I see the likelihood of this EO going anywhere to be close to zero.

One thing though, is that the language of the CPB law requires the CPB to be non-biased. We already had congressional hearings which pretty much make that a farce.

It will be fun, however, to listen to NPR and PBS to defend the non-biased nature of their programming in court under oath and subject to perjury if this makes it to trial. Will make for fun headlines and sound-bites.

Just imagine how much fun it will be to use AI to come up with fun trial exhibits. Simple word diagrams that show the propensity of words used in the same sentence as Trump versus Biden would be absolutely freaking hilarious.

Imagine a diagram that shows top 5 words related to Trump to be: fraud, illegal, impeached, Russia, and lie; and top 5 words related to Biden to be: sharp, competent, truth, popular, protector.

It's a simple algorithm that wouldn't be hard to write with all of the data. And you could share the algorithm and open it for cross examination. And it is a method that is scientifically accepted in the media industry.

---

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

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.

A. G. Pennypacker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CPB was established by congress in 1976, and NPR/PBS was established by congress under the power of the CPB.

After the loss against the CFPB, I see the likelihood of this EO going anywhere to be close to zero.

One thing though, is that the language of the CPB law requires the CPB to be non-biased. We already had congressional hearings which pretty much make that a farce.

It will be fun, however, to listen to NPR and PBS to defend the non-biased nature of their programming in court under oath and subject to perjury if this makes it to trial. Will make for fun headlines and sound-bites.

Just imagine how much fun it will be to use AI to come up with fun trial exhibits. Simple word diagrams that show the propensity of words used in the same sentence as Trump versus Biden would be absolutely freaking hilarious.

Imagine a diagram that shows top 5 words related to Trump to be: fraud, illegal, impeached, Russia, and lie; and top 5 words related to Biden to be: sharp, competent, truth, popular, protector.

It's a simple algorithm that wouldn't be hard to write with all of the data. And you could share the algorithm and open it for cross examination. And it is a method that is scientifically accepted in the media industry.

---

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

---

Theres a difference between that and putting editorial notes on stories with trigger warnings of how offensive the constitution might be or how every hour must contain a story about "bipoc" or "lgbtq" people. Or, go look at a list of the "experts" brought in. Its full of one extreme political positions and has almost non of the opposite views points.

I'd recommend watching some of the election night coverage from pbs and then try to square that with them claiming to be non partisan.

Here you go:




The reality is that govt news no longer serves its original purpose. There's no longer only one or two options for news. There's seemingly endless amounts of options across multiple mediums that people can get their news from.

Npr/pbs can exist on their own, without public support. We don't need them anymore, as a public service. We certainly don't need a govt sponsored propaganda outlet.

A. G. Pennypacker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CPB was established by congress in 1976, and NPR/PBS was established by congress under the power of the CPB.

After the loss against the CFPB, I see the likelihood of this EO going anywhere to be close to zero.

One thing though, is that the language of the CPB law requires the CPB to be non-biased. We already had congressional hearings which pretty much make that a farce.

It will be fun, however, to listen to NPR and PBS to defend the non-biased nature of their programming in court under oath and subject to perjury if this makes it to trial. Will make for fun headlines and sound-bites.

Just imagine how much fun it will be to use AI to come up with fun trial exhibits. Simple word diagrams that show the propensity of words used in the same sentence as Trump versus Biden would be absolutely freaking hilarious.

Imagine a diagram that shows top 5 words related to Trump to be: fraud, illegal, impeached, Russia, and lie; and top 5 words related to Biden to be: sharp, competent, truth, popular, protector.

It's a simple algorithm that wouldn't be hard to write with all of the data. And you could share the algorithm and open it for cross examination. And it is a method that is scientifically accepted in the media industry.

---

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

---

So, there is a saying in accounting that there is a difference between being aggressive and fraudulent, but there is rarely a 100% correct answer. In valuation, there is a difference between being reasonable and fraudulent, but there is rarely a 100% correct answer.

In media, there is a difference between being slanted and biased. I think that NPR, in particular, will have a lot of trouble defending the fact that they don't support the Democratic party. Even if the Government can't prove it in court, it is worth trying to get to trial just to hear NPR make their case.

The editorial board of NPR is 87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans. That is quite a hole to dig out of in proving that you are not biased.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

A. G. Pennypacker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CPB was established by congress in 1976, and NPR/PBS was established by congress under the power of the CPB.

After the loss against the CFPB, I see the likelihood of this EO going anywhere to be close to zero.

One thing though, is that the language of the CPB law requires the CPB to be non-biased. We already had congressional hearings which pretty much make that a farce.

It will be fun, however, to listen to NPR and PBS to defend the non-biased nature of their programming in court under oath and subject to perjury if this makes it to trial. Will make for fun headlines and sound-bites.

Just imagine how much fun it will be to use AI to come up with fun trial exhibits. Simple word diagrams that show the propensity of words used in the same sentence as Trump versus Biden would be absolutely freaking hilarious.

Imagine a diagram that shows top 5 words related to Trump to be: fraud, illegal, impeached, Russia, and lie; and top 5 words related to Biden to be: sharp, competent, truth, popular, protector.

It's a simple algorithm that wouldn't be hard to write with all of the data. And you could share the algorithm and open it for cross examination. And it is a method that is scientifically accepted in the media industry.

---

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

---

Theres a difference between that and putting editorial notes on stories with trigger warnings of how offensive the constitution might be or how every hour must contain a story about "bipoc" or "lgbtq" people. Or, go look at a list of the "experts" brought in. Its full of one extreme political positions and has almost non of the opposite views points.

I'd recommend watching some of the election night coverage from pbs and then try to square that with them claiming to be non partisan.

Here you go:




The reality is that govt news no longer serves its original purpose. There's no longer only one or two options for news. There's seemingly endless amounts of options across multiple mediums that people can get their news from.

Npr/pbs can exist on their own, without public support. We don't need them anymore, as a public service. We certainly don't need a govt sponsored propaganda outlet.

---

That election night coverage is Maddow-Olberman level screed. I never saw that before. It's simply incredible that they even make a claim of being unboased.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

A. G. Pennypacker said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CPB was established by congress in 1976, and NPR/PBS was established by congress under the power of the CPB.

After the loss against the CFPB, I see the likelihood of this EO going anywhere to be close to zero.

One thing though, is that the language of the CPB law requires the CPB to be non-biased. We already had congressional hearings which pretty much make that a farce.

It will be fun, however, to listen to NPR and PBS to defend the non-biased nature of their programming in court under oath and subject to perjury if this makes it to trial. Will make for fun headlines and sound-bites.

Just imagine how much fun it will be to use AI to come up with fun trial exhibits. Simple word diagrams that show the propensity of words used in the same sentence as Trump versus Biden would be absolutely freaking hilarious.

Imagine a diagram that shows top 5 words related to Trump to be: fraud, illegal, impeached, Russia, and lie; and top 5 words related to Biden to be: sharp, competent, truth, popular, protector.

It's a simple algorithm that wouldn't be hard to write with all of the data. And you could share the algorithm and open it for cross examination. And it is a method that is scientifically accepted in the media industry.

---

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

---

Theres a difference between that and putting editorial notes on stories with trigger warnings of how offensive the constitution might be or how every hour must contain a story about "bipoc" or "lgbtq" people. Or, go look at a list of the "experts" brought in. Its full of one extreme political positions and has almost non of the opposite views points.

I'd recommend watching some of the election night coverage from pbs and then try to square that with them claiming to be non partisan.

Here you go:




The reality is that govt news no longer serves its original purpose. There's no longer only one or two options for news. There's seemingly endless amounts of options across multiple mediums that people can get their news from.

Npr/pbs can exist on their own, without public support. We don't need them anymore, as a public service. We certainly don't need a govt sponsored propaganda outlet.

---

That election night coverage is Maddow-Olberman level screed. I never saw that before. It's simply incredible that they even make a claim of being unboased.

---

To be fair...it is a video highlight extreme leftist views points. If imagine watching the entire unedited version would be a little more mellow.

But not by much

And your points stands. I dont think too many would find it acceptable for Maddow show to be a pbs/npr show just as most would probably not find it appropriate for npr/pbs to be the place to find Jesse waters.

But, that's what npr/pbs are- mostly opinion outlets dressed up as news

Hey Nav said:

---

Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser was on PBS for 32 years. It's what this finance major watched on Friday nights during college. Loved it. Watched it until it went off the Air.

Some other shows I can think of that were/are on PBS that did not kill America:

Austin City Limits
NOVA
Masterpiece Theatre
All Creatures Great and Small
Baseball
The Civil War
The War (yeah, I know Ken Burns is a Democrat from New York)

PBS and NPR get chump change from our federal tax dollars (maybe 10 or 15% of their funding, directly and indirectly). They will survive.

If you ever ate at McDonalds in the old days, you helped fund Mrs Ray Kroc's 100s of millions of dollars in donations. If you are a Liberty Mutual customer, same thing. The list goes on and on.

I'm fine with federal funding being cut off, but it's the whole "Congress funds things" (Congress funds, the President can veto, or sign it, etc). I have no idea about Presidential EOs being legal. It seems Biden did all sorts of EOs I did not think were appropriate or legal.

Maybe it's your representatives in Congress that you should express your feelings towards?

---

I would add Firing Line with William F. Buckley.

• PBS (19711999, June 22, 2018)

Trajan88 said:

---

npr on-air talent with their wannabe regal, monotone I-am-struggling-to-come-up-with-small-words-so-utes-can-understand-me voices.

Make them elites compete, work tor ad revenue in order to survive in the private market.

---

If NPR had to compete for ad revenue, it would suffer the same fate as Air America

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.

---

Sarcasm duly noted

Rapier108 said:

---

Will be blocked by a federal judge in short order.

The TRO is probably already written.

---

Ignore any TRO from tyrant left wing judges.

Suspend Habeas Corpus if it is a must.

Burdizzo said:

---

Trajan88 said:

---

npr on-air talent with their wannabe regal, monotone I-am-struggling-to-come-up-with-small-words-so-utes-can-understand-me voices.

Make them elites compete, work tor ad revenue in order to survive in the private market.

---

If NPR had to compete for ad revenue, it would suffer the same fate as Air America

---

What'd be interesting is if the corporate sponsorships would go away. Its a form of corporate virtual signaling.

It's also a little bit of a money laundering for dems. Would be interesting to see if the legitimacy that is derived by being a "public" good goes away when companies lose any extra incentives beyond number of eyes/ears that will hear their ads.

nortex97 said:

---

Wow https://t.co/h6IHX0hDAN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2025

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..

Quote:

---

So long npr and pbs

---

I agree, pull public funding.

But they aren't going anywhere. Pg. 7 of the last NPR audit has $4.3mm of public funding revenue in '23 (out of $237mm total revenue). This is a 1.8% hit on funding.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Will be blocked by a federal judge in short order.

The TRO is probably already written.

---

Ignore any TRO from tyrant left wing judges.

Suspend Habeas Corpus if it is a must.

---

Grow up.

RangerRick9211 said:

---

Quote:

---

So long npr and pbs

---

I agree, pull public funding.

But they aren't going anywhere. Pg. 7 of the last NPR audit has $4.3mm of public funding revenue in '23 (out of $237mm total revenue). This is a 1.8% hit on funding.

---

Sure it is. Just like abortions aren't the reason for Planned Parenthood's existence.

If it's such a tiny sliver of their funding, why the outrage?

They don't need public funding. They can get sponsored by the letters F and U.

sam callahan said:

---

If it's such a tiny sliver of their funding, why the outrage?

---

This always cracks me up. It's a sliver of their funding but it will be a disaster for the public if it's cut. NPR is probably the reason Air America failed and why there is no lefty talk radio. NPR has the gov't funded monopoly on it.

RangerRick9211 said:

---

Quote:

---

So long npr and pbs

---

I agree, pull public funding.

But they aren't going anywhere. Pg. 7 of the last NPR audit has $4.3mm of public funding revenue in '23 (out of $237mm total revenue). This is a 1.8% hit on funding.

---

Good for them they won't miss our tax dollars.

RangerRick9211 said:

---

Quote:

---

So long npr and pbs

---

I agree, pull public funding.

But they aren't going anywhere. Pg. 7 of the last NPR audit has $4.3mm of public funding revenue in '23 (out of $237mm total revenue). This is a 1.8% hit on funding.

---

Which is crazy the amount of crying libs are doing over it.


It either matters or it doesn't.

But, that goes back to npr/cbp being a huge money laundering operation

To be fair, NPR does have really good programming if it's not of a political nature. The political/news shows are ridiculously one sided as they spend each segment swatting down right wing strawmen and somehow linking every negative occurrence to something Republicans and especially Trump did. They could easily switch to a profit driven format and do ok. Ad revenue from Subaru alone would kill it!

There funding will not get cutoff, unless congress does it. And they never cut, only increase. Trump is trying but our country is already lost.

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.

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.

---

I am against it in every way. To be clear.

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.

45-70Ag said:

---

🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump has just signed an executive order ELIMINATING the taxpayer subsidization of NPR and PBS

US taxpayers will NO LONGET be funding anti-American propaganda!

FINALLY! 🇺🇸🔥 pic.twitter.com/lc3HFmxJs1

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 2, 2025

They started off as a good idea but were ruined a long time ago.

---

Govt funded news was never a good idea

Don't "shut them down." Just reduce the funding to $1 and tell them good luck.

But where are we going to get our British comedy?
The best thing they could do for ratings is broadcast Benny Hill.
The left would lose their *****..

Radio Lab
Science Friday
This American Life