Defund NPR & PBS NOW – They left's subsidized indoctrination “News” organization

I've been saying the same thing for years so you aren't alone. It got bad right after a Republican party official took charge at NPR back in the early-mid 2000's. Bias started showing up. Now it's gotten so predictable, if it's about immigration they never talk about what it costs taxpayers and always interview some illegal who is going to school to be a doctor or some such. As you say it's as much about what they don't say or show as what they do.

Sadly the public stations have become echo boxes for progressive viewpoints, period.
Their only saving grace is Nature shows and classical music programming.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Wait Wait Don't Tell Me!

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I've been saying the same thing for years so you aren't alone. It got bad right after a Republican party official took charge at NPR back in the early-mid 2000's. Bias started showing up. Now it's gotten so predictable, if it's about immigration they never talk about what it costs taxpayers and always interview some illegal who is going to school to be a doctor or some such. As you say it's as much about what they don't say or show as what they do.

Sadly the public stations have become echo boxes for progressive viewpoints, period.
Their only saving grace is Nature shows and classical music programming.

Want to know how I know you dont listing to NPR News? They constantly have people from the both side of things. Maybe you are listening to the podcasts or locally made stuff from liberal markets?

originally posted by: projectvxn
But what about NOVA, Sesame Street, and PBS science where they make videos online like PBS Spacetime and other shows?

Defund? No. Depoliticize? Absolutely.

Well stations like Discovery channel, History, The learning channel, etc, seem to do alright. Maybe the quality shows could either start their own channel (and I'm sure there would be MANY producers starting new programs to fill gaps of a new station - like people currently on YT where there are some EXCEPTIONALLY good presenters/shows). With the internet and cable packages al-la-carte, these educational channels could be accessible to everyone for low prices.

I would go as far as having educational channels (internet or cable/satellite) be tax deductible, though that isn't a huge amount of savings. Possibly even some subsidized subscriptions to the channels for families on food stamps and low income households.

I have NOTHING against good educational programs and support them more than any NEWS program and think they should be available to everyone at little to no cost (but they get income via subsidies or donations by sponsors, etc). Educating our children in a non biased way should be one of our top 5 priorities if not top 1-2 (preventing nuclear war/war might be #1...).

a reply to: watchitburn

So taxpayer funded media should not be politically slanted.

It's not.

As stated, it promotes reality, not extreme delusion, delusion which in itself is intent on upending reality and truth.

That's the point.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
Well it is supposed to be nonpartisain and they claim that it is. They have fought the claims that it is bias for years but nothing happens and nothing changes. If they would cover both sides of America evenly with presenters and hosts from both sides (not fake conservatives playing the role to get around the rules) then that would be good.

I see... so you think they should have openly biased news analysts, in order to make it non-biased?

So for every report or article on "the family with 2 mommies" or "the family with 2 trans parents" , there needs to be a balance where the story will be as repulsive to the left as those two stories are to the conservatives.

That's the very definition of "fake news"!

News analysts creating their own narrative... rather than just letting the interviewee tell their own story from their personal perspective, then letting the audience interpret it however they want, which is what real journalism actually is.

Lets face it, some people don't want real journalism... They just want Alex Jones type lunatics ranting on with their own extreme right opinions... Anything less, is just disregarded as leftist "fake news"!

a reply to: DigginFoTroof
I don’t mind my tax dollars going to pbs and npr, they actually have great programming and thoughtful stories, who doesn’t like nova, frontline and sci Friday? I know their liberal slant, but as a moderate, I can tolerate it because they actually bring something to the table that other outlets don’t have. I think their funding is less than 20 percent or something otherwise they would not be constantly fund raising. Everything is about hate and polarization this day and age, it’s nice to see or hear insightful programmers in this age of blind hatred and political dogma, that’s my crappy opinion anyways.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

During the campaign President Trump PROMISED to terminate taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS. Anybody know why this has been delayed?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: howtonhawky
why not just bring in some other voices?
some people can't afford cable.

Why not make it nonpartisan?

After all, they are funded with taxpayer dollars. Not liberal dollars. Not conservative dollars. Ever think about that?

~shocked look~

give me one nonpartisan example of a teleshow

you can't but if you could then perhaps model after that if it works.

You are correct, I can't. That is the sad part. The whole problem, actually.

We have a media that is essentially an extension of the DNC. A media that is allowed to do that by our own government.

Do you agree that the media should be non-biased?

The media needs to get away from partisan politics. It needs to stop being political and go back to just reporting the news. Or they should just get their FCC license yanked and given to a business that just reports the news. Or in the case of PBS and NPR, defunded and let go.

I mean, look at PBS. You have taxpayer dollars going to fund leftist views and things like Big Bird. Big Bird has a clothing line, ffs. Why are we funding these people again? The latest Omnibus bill funded Big Bird but also had to fund the military.

Military spending is in the Constitution. Big Bird is not.

Close them down or let them use their actual income streams to fund their programs.

Does anyone know , or would even think , I am a member of NPR ?
I am , and have been for a very long time. Who would have thunk ?
The only problem I have ? They terminated Juan Williams. Juan was one reason why I kept listening. He was much better then than he is on Fox now . I am wondering if they script some of his stuff or give direction.

As far as being swayed , I feel a person has to listen to different folks with different outlooks else the person becomes "stale".

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

During the campaign President Trump PROMISED to terminate taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS. Anybody know why this has been delayed?

Yes.. the Omnibus spending bill. A 6 month bill that I am extremely disappointed at. That Trump voted for.

He needs to get his head out of his butt and fix that.

Or be another one term president. He didn't get elected to kiss liberal butt.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I've been saying the same thing for years so you aren't alone. It got bad right after a Republican party official took charge at NPR back in the early-mid 2000's. Bias started showing up. Now it's gotten so predictable, if it's about immigration they never talk about what it costs taxpayers and always interview some illegal who is going to school to be a doctor or some such. As you say it's as much about what they don't say or show as what they do.

Sadly the public stations have become echo boxes for progressive viewpoints, period.
Their only saving grace is Nature shows and classical music programming.

Want to know how I know you dont listing to NPR News? They constantly have people from the both side of things. Maybe you are listening to the podcasts or locally made stuff from liberal markets?

That's political analysts. Nearly all news networks have guest analysts with opposite opinions when debating political issues.

Except fox news, which regularly has a group of people sitting around just agreeing with each others right wing views. Either that, or its a few people constantly talking over, or cutting off the one analyst who disagrees with their hard line right wing narrative.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

NPR/PBS should start a GoFundMe account if they want public money.

originally posted by: fiverx313
why don't we just give all news outlets and websites everywhere to sinclair and fox? then you won't ever have to be challenged by any opposing views ever again!

Did you miss the point about "Subsidized" and thus the point of the thread? Yes, I think you did.

a reply to: howtonhawky
Blues Clues lol

a reply to: carewemust

"Public" money comes from taxes.

GoFundMe would be considered "Private" donations.

Which I know PBS gets aplenty. The robberbarrons love dumping money into that thing. But they do it only for the greater good of course.

Some people have been questioning if there is liberal bias. What I mean to a large extent is the type of stories they cover like the two examples I gave. They give a HUGE amount of coverage to gay/trans issues, MANY times more than the equal percentage they make up of the population. From listening to NPR, you could be forgiven for thinking that gay/trans make up 30-40% of the population for how much coverage they get (coverage meaning stories or discussion about them and their issues).

Another is the liberal position of bashing men in the work place, the pay discrepancy and NEVER talking about the real numbers or anything that supports the real reason for a difference in pay.

Then there are the stories of minority oppression, again and again and again, and that the evil white's are doing this to the blacks (seems "latino's" complain about this about 1/100th as much as blacks in the media). One story of a girl who got a full scholarship along with a number of grants (to cover every imaginable expense & living cost) to an ivy league college and she was a problem child in high school, drugs, criminal activity, bad grades (barely C average), yet somehow she got into a top college (I think it was Columbia U). She lasted about 3 years before she quit because she thought she was being manipulated or something (he logic was totally unintelligible), so she could pursue her real dreams and desires, which when asked she had no idea what they were, had no plans for the future and no job. She was 100% ungrateful for the opportunity given to her and acted like it is as common as air. She was hailed as a role model for other minority students and held up as an example of a strong, independent minority woman. My mom and I looked at each other with a totally confused look like WTF did we just hear? Her response was something like "this girl was given everything you could possibly want at that age and she acted like she was forced into slavery or a concentration camp". We couldn't believe the story and how NPR acted like this was an example of achievement where by any sane person, it looks like total failure and a spoiled, self centered brat.

These are the types of stories I hear over and over on NPR and I rarely hear anything that has to do with things I relate to. It's good to hear about other lifestyles but they glorify failure and laziness and depravity as if it is to be upheld as normal and to be praised. This is part of the reason our younger generations are so confused. Our media isn't doing their job of calling out degenerates as degenerates when they are being interviewed. Ingrates should be called ingrates and not "independent" or whatever.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I've been saying the same thing for years so you aren't alone. It got bad right after a Republican party official took charge at NPR back in the early-mid 2000's. Bias started showing up. Now it's gotten so predictable, if it's about immigration they never talk about what it costs taxpayers and always interview some illegal who is going to school to be a doctor or some such. As you say it's as much about what they don't say or show as what they do.

Sadly the public stations have become echo boxes for progressive viewpoints, period.
Their only saving grace is Nature shows and classical music programming.

I'm really glad you notice the fact that they omit certain talking points or facts in their reports. The thing is, when an informed listener listens to NPR/PBS and lean to the conservative side, the slant is very appearant because they know the points that should be raised or issues related to what they are talking about. This is basically equivalent to lies of omission and it is clear as day to informed viewers what is happening.

i'll be listening to an interview and I'm just waiting for the host to ask a very obvious question (one that everyone in my room is thinking to themselves) and it is never asked, nor anything even close to the question/topic - but the question/topic is VERY relevant to the issue being discussed - but if it were brought up, it would not be good for the liberal point of view. THIS is the example of media bias that plays out time and again on NPR/PBS many times a day and it is the easiest to hide. They can say "oh, we didn't know to ask that" or whatever to claim innocence when it comes to bias but their demeanor, tone of voice, etc speak volumes about where they stand and I often hear a little smirk/chuckle in their voice when they intentionally omit questions or points of view that are detrimental to their propaganda.

I say we write a form letter about why we feel funding needs to end ASAP to NPR/PBS and explain all the points. We then need to send them to our senators and congressmen and demand action on this (sending to the president wouldn't hurt as well). I think people underestimate the power that this organization has, especially when it comes to political commentary and points of view as they are seen as "non-biased" which is total BS as some already know.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of our representatives didn't know the methods NPR/PBS uses in their broadcasts, especially the omission protocol. While that is the hardest to prove, I spent WAY to many hours listening to determine if it was accidental or purposeful and I can say with 100% certainty that the omissions are purposeful - which should result in them loosing their funding immediately.

I think they should loose their FCC license for their dirty tricks and misuse of government funds, at least for 3-5 years or something. There NEEDS to be a penalty for playing dirty when doing it on the government dime while putting on the air of being non partisan b/c THAT is what leads to the most manipulation, thinking that they are non-partisan while really being totally partisan and anyone who doesn't understand that and how that relationship works needs to go back to school.

a reply to: Lumenari

Do you agree that the media should be non-biased?

no i do not buy that mess cause it would be too hard to do on an ongoing basis

i like big bird when i was young

i think the channels could all use a good spring cleaning

we need views from both sides that are geared toward the middle and not fringe beliefs as is now.

we need better oversite to steer them in the right direction

i got no problems with much of the programming on the channels other than fringe stuff

basically what i am saying is bring back flintstones

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Lumenari

Do you agree that the media should be non-biased?

no i do not buy that mess cause it would be too hard to do on an ongoing basis

i like big bird when i was young

i think the channels could all use a good spring cleaning

we need views from both sides that are geared toward the middle and not fringe beliefs as is now.

we need better oversite to steer them in the right direction

i got no problems with much of the programming on the channels other than fringe stuff

basically what i am saying is bring back flintstones

SoOo... truth is hard so why bother.

Thanks for your viewpoint.