Trump Admin Decimates VOA, USIA

[Jay59]

What does a 'bipartisan' VOA look like? A mix of pro Democracy/anti Democracy?

A mix of CNN and Fox, HuffPo and Breitbart, New Republic and National Review. So far it's been Daily Koss, Mother Jones and some stuff further left.

 

[Glitch]

A mix of CNN and Fox, HuffPo and Breitbart, New Republic and National Review. So far it's been Daily Koss, Mother Jones and some stuff further left.

I've got a better way to absolutely ensure bipartisanship. Abolish the VOA. VOA, NPR, and PBS should not receive a single penny of federal funding.

 

[jpn]

A mix of CNN and Fox, HuffPo and Breitbart, New Republic and National Review. So far it's been Daily Koss, Mother Jones and some stuff further left.

I doubt you've ever listened to VOA. Show us proof it's exclusively far left.

I won't wait up.

 

[iguanaman]

I have had almost zero contact with Briebart, so I doubt I could care less.

However, you raise an interesting comparison. Consider your reaction if Bannon was allowed to broadcast his Breitbart content over Voice of America.


In 2032?

That is what is happening so that IS what I am reacting to.

 

[Jay59]

I've got a better way to absolutely ensure bipartisanship. Abolish the VOA. VOA, NPR, and PBS should not receive a single penny of federal funding.

Given their hyper-partisan history, I can see your point. That said, I think they all have a place.

I doubt you've ever listened to VOA. Show us proof it's exclusively far left. I won't wait up.

I know that you find facts annoying. Sorry about that, but I feel it is necessary to deal with facts.

That is what is happening so that IS what I am reacting to.

In that case, you understand why everyone on the right wants a change. It's just one of many levels of propaganda you seem to feel entitled to. Just because you feel entitled, does not make it so.

 

[Integrityrespec]

In a late night move last Wednesday night, Trump fires VOA chief and replaces her with a Steve Bannon ally.

This looks like a very dangerous move by Trump to take over the American international broadcasting system. A government funded news outlet that's been bi-partisan since WWII. This is really scary stuff. Anyone who thinks Trump is not authoritarian, think again. Not good news for the U.S.

Now this may not look like that much of a big deal to some here, but to me, My father spent 35 years at the VOA and he loved his job. He would be rolling in his grave right about now.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...?id=71280723&usg=AOvVaw16HOQ25yLvjGbfhRO0OMAk

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...or-officials&usg=AOvVaw3IQod8tUGPXzu6ChcVKlKz

Maybe he's just trying to even up the news outlets since we know the media is a bunch of biased liberals.

 

[Bullseye]

Decimates? Hardly. What the admin did was remove "hate America first" looneys and replaced them with people who don't blame America for everything.

 

[iguanaman]

Given their hyper-partisan history, I can see your point. That said, I think they all have a place.


I know that you find facts annoying. Sorry about that, but I feel it is necessary to deal with facts.


In that case, you understand why everyone on the right wants a change. It's just one of many levels of propaganda you seem to feel entitled to. Just because you feel entitled, does not make it so.

Feeding lies and propaganda from Bannon is not why we pay taxes to pay for the VOA. It's despicable to pervert a beacon of hope for million into just another fake news outlet. If the Russians want fake news they can always find it on RT or some other State sponsored media, they listen to VOA to find the truth.. Bannon is a greedy lying scumbag who would not know the truth if it f''ked him in the ass. Sorry about the language it is just that it is the truth.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Feeding lies and propaganda from Bannon is not why we pay taxes to pay for the VOA. It's despicable to pervert a beacon of hope for million into just another fake news outlet. If the Russians want fake news they can always find it on RT or some other State sponsored media, they listen to VOA to find the truth.. Bannon is a greedy lying scumbag who would not know the truth if it f''ked him in the ass. Sorry about the language it is just that it is the truth.

Don't confuse your upset feelings, or opinions, with 'the truth'.

 

[Glitch]

Given their hyper-partisan history, I can see your point. That said, I think they all have a place.

Not according to the US Constitution. An argument could have been made during WW II that the VOA was necessary for purposes of national defense to counter the NAZI propaganda machine. However, the federal government is not granted the power to create or fund propaganda, of any kind, and is therefore prohibited from doing so by the Tenth Amendment. Federal funding of the VOA, NPR, and PBS is unconstitutional.

 

[Jay59]

Feeding lies and propaganda from Bannon is not why we pay taxes to pay for the VOA. It's despicable to pervert a beacon of hope for million into just another fake news outlet. If the Russians want fake news they can always find it on RT or some other State sponsored media, they listen to VOA to find the truth.. Bannon is a greedy lying scumbag who would not know the truth if it f''ked him in the ass. Sorry about the language it is just that it is the truth.

Then, we should stop funding the VOA, because they are feeding a different brand of propaganda. I just mentioned Bannon to give a taste of why people are upset.

Not according to the US Constitution. An argument could have been made during WW II that the VOA was necessary for purposes of national defense to counter the NAZI propaganda machine. However, the federal government is not granted the power to create or fund propaganda, of any kind, and is therefore prohibited from doing so by the Tenth Amendment. Federal funding of the VOA, NPR, and PBS is unconstitutional.

It's a reasonable position, especially considering the results. The same logic covers all social programs. The question is where to stop cutting.

 

[TomFitz]

This story bears very careful watching.

 

[jpn]

In that case, you understand why everyone on the right wants a change. It's just one of many levels of propaganda you seem to feel entitled to. Just because you feel entitled, does not make it so.

Examples of "propaganda" from a conservative point of view: Climate change is real. Evolution is real. Tax cuts reduce tax revenue. Voter fraud in the US is a myth Republicans use as an excuse to limit voting by minority groups. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun. Racism is real and Republicans use it to divide Americans. The Coronavirus is real and social distancing and masks reduce its lethality.

The left doesn't deal in propaganda. It deals with reality, which the right can't tolerate.

 

[Jay59]

Examples of "propaganda" from a conservative point of view: Climate change is real. Evolution is real. Tax cuts reduce tax revenue. Voter fraud in the US is a myth Republicans use as an excuse to limit voting by minority groups. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun. Racism is real and Republicans use it to divide Americans. The Coronavirus is real and social distancing and masks reduce its lethality.

The left doesn't deal in propaganda. It deals with reality, which the right can't tolerate.

You are proving their case. Climate change is real, but urgent need for action is not. Voter fraud is something both sides trumpet, hardly just Republicans. And so on.

 

[jpn]

You are proving their case. Climate change is real, but urgent need for action is not. Voter fraud is something both sides trumpet, hardly just Republicans. And so on.

Wow, you live in an alternate "reality" created by right-wing propaganda.

You're a living example of how the far right sees conspiracies and "propaganda" all around them, when in fact it's just real people living in the real world.

 

[Jay59]

Wow, you live in an "alternate "reality" created by right-wing propaganda. You're a living example of how the far right sees conspiracies and "propaganda" all around them, when in fact it's just real people living in the real world.

So, your proposal is that you and I should get equal time, correct?

I doubt that would work, since I am opposed to censorship. What if I said Black Cops Matter?

 

[jpn]

So, your proposal is that you and I should get equal time, correct?

I doubt that would work, since I am opposed to censorship. What if I said Black Cops Matter?

My proposal is that the reporting is based on facts. For example:

In the early 20th century the American South was ravaged by pellagra, a nasty disease that produced the “four Ds” — dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia and death. At first, pellagra’s nature was uncertain, but by 1915 Dr. Joseph Goldberger, a Hungarian immigrant employed by the federal government, had conclusively shown that it was caused by nutritional deficiencies associated with poverty, and especially with a corn-based diet.

However, for decades many Southern citizens and politicians refused to accept this diagnosis, declaring either that the epidemic was a fiction created by Northerners to insult the South or that the nutritional theory was an attack on Southern culture. And deaths from pellagra continued to climb.

Sound familiar?​

In this example, you would demand equal time to argue that pellagra was a fiction created by Northerners to insult the South or that the nutritional theory was an attack on Southern culture. And if you didn't get it, you would claim censorship.

I approve of "censorship" of dangerous nonsense. You disagree. M'kay.

 

[Jay59]

My proposal is that the reporting is based on facts.

Red herring. The definition of facts is important, and you have thrown out some opinions as fact, eg climate change.

For example:

In the early 20th century the American South was ravaged by pellagra, a nasty disease that produced the “four Ds” — dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia and death. At first, pellagra’s nature was uncertain, but by 1915 Dr. Joseph Goldberger, a Hungarian immigrant employed by the federal government, had conclusively shown that it was caused by nutritional deficiencies associated with poverty, and especially with a corn-based diet. However, for decades many Southern citizens and politicians refused to accept this diagnosis, declaring either that the epidemic was a fiction created by Northerners to insult the South or that the nutritional theory was an attack on Southern culture. And deaths from pellagra continued to climb.

Sound familiar?​

No. It does not sound familiar

In this example, you would demand equal time to argue that pellagra was a fiction created by Northerners to insult the South or that the nutritional theory was an attack on Southern culture. And if you didn't get it, you would claim censorship.

No, I wouldn't. This where you get in trouble. You leave the facts and report your conclusions as facts. In this case, your conclusion is also your assumption, which is particularly bad.

I approve of "censorship" of dangerous nonsense. You disagree. M'kay.

Stop after four words. You approve of censorship.

 

[JMaximus]

Intelligent people already know better than to trust the government for information.

This is not news to them.