• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump set to cut off PBS, NPR

NPR does a damn good job. They are relatively unbiased IMO, compared to networks and major papers. They stick to traditional "present both sides" journalism. They are not without their pressures from the boss with the money bag, which varies depending on the area (ETV/PBS in my area is actually somewhat conservative slanted), but they don't have nearly the pressures on them that for profit 24 hour news cycles do, which lets them stay closer to the center. Throwing them out into the streets like this is going to force them to change into something else which is probably not going to be for the better.
 
I really enjoy some NPR programs, I'm even currently listening to an NPR podcast right now (intelligence squared debates), however I am in complete agreement on this.

I could care less about bias or lack thereof of, the government should not be using federal funds to support it. If they want to continue to provide their services then they can find sponsors or run ads to support them. They put out a quality product that can fund itself. Even if it were a conservative publication like the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro's podcast/news site) I would be against using government funds to support it simply on principle.

Intelligence squared is a prime example of programming hard to find elsewhere. Anyone who believes NPR and PBS are partisan hacks does not listen or watch them. Fine. Cut funding. We will make it up. Then what will you do? Pull the license? Trump and conservatives want to kill anything they think speaks counter to their narrative. Keep it up. 1984 is already on the best seller list after just 4 days. You will make it number 1.
 
PBS provides free educational entertainment to children without being interrupted by corporations trying to market various toys and other material goods to them.

There are first generation young American children who show up to kindergarten speaking fairly good English due to growing up with shows like Sesame Street.

I can easily be convinced there are shows on PBS that shouldn't be subsidized. But I put educational programming in a different boat.
 
I don't see how the NPR we have today is openly partisan. Maybe it is the case, but I'm more inclined to think a lot of people took a hard right and from their current perspectives everything not Breitbart is partisan.

They're not openly partisan but I can notice s leftward lean, their listeners are nearly all liberal, at least of the news programs, their non news programs have broader appeal, car talk for example was successful for decades and that show created and shaped an entire culture around it.

But their news reporting does lean leftward, it's hard to argue that, I listen to my local affiliate 94.9 KOUW and one night they had John Carlson (a Seattle conservative talk host) on a panel with three complete leftists discussing homelessness and Carlson was trying to point out that a shelter he serves on the board of has empty beds and these other three were just trying to tell him no shelter beds were available in town.
 
The whole point of PBS and NPR is to provide educational programming that is accessible to everyone. It isn't based on if you can afford it or not.

Point taken. My HBO posts really doesn't fit and I retract it.
However they can still find other ways to raise funds either by more commercials or by getting more private donations.
 
Can't the free local stations provide this basic programming?

That's, that's not how PBS works at all. Local PBS stations are owned in large part by educational institutions and non-profs whose goal... for the last time: Is to make quality programing available to Americans who wouldn't otherwise have access to it.

Why would they emulate a service like HBO whose goal is the exact opposite?

:lol:
 
Can't NPR and PBS run commercials to pay for themselves?

You mean like very other radio station in the country? I really don't think so. The last left leaning sizeable radio network went bust. That was Air America.
 
That's, that's not how PBS works at all. Local PBS stations are owned in large part by educational institutions and non-profs whose goal... for the last time: Is to make quality programing available to Americans who wouldn't otherwise have access to it.

Why would they emulate a service HBO whose goal is the exact opposite?

:lol:

I see your point and retract my HBO post. However there seems to be a lot of disagreement with their definition of quality programming. Seems many people think the public stations are too politically left leaning. I didn't know Big Bird was involved in politics but from the way the right talks about PBS and NPR he must be one of those illegals that voted for Clinton.

Maybe they just need to find another way to raise funds.
 
I see your point and retract my HBO post. However there seems to be a lot of disagreement with their definition of quality programming. Seems many people think the public stations are too politically left leaning. I didn't know Big Bird was involved in politics but from the way the right talks about PBS and NPR he must be one of those illegals that voted for Clinton.

Maybe they just need to find another way to raise funds.

The issue seems to be that some people think being told about that global warming is a bad thing... even when the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that knowledge of global warming and the measures being discussed to slow it down won't make you an idiot...

That's really all it is.
 
Last edited:
Intelligence squared is a prime example of programming hard to find elsewhere. Anyone who believes NPR and PBS are partisan hacks does not listen or watch them. Fine. Cut funding. We will make it up. Then what will you do? Pull the license? Trump and conservatives want to kill anything they think speaks counter to their narrative. Keep it up. 1984 is already on the best seller list after just 4 days. You will make it number 1.

I would be against the government trying to shutdown any publication. I just also believe the government should not be funding it.

I already said that I actually enjoy the broadcasts that NPR puts out so it should stand to reason that I would be against the government trying to shut them down.
 
You mean like very other radio station in the country? I really don't think so. The last left leaning sizeable radio network went bust. That was Air America.

They could balance out their programming by making cookie monster a republican. He could taunt Bert and Ernie when they walk past by calling them faggots.
 
The issue seems to be that some people think being told that global warming is a bad thing... even when the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that knowledge of global warming and the measures being discussed to slow it down won't make you an idiot...

That's really all it is.

Right. The partisans became so partisan they think the non-partisan stuff is partisan.
 
Right. The partisans became so partisan they think the non-partisan stuff is partisan.

I laughed when I read this, too bad its true. Not just republicans either...
 
Right. The partisans became so partisan they think the non-partisan stuff is partisan.

History always repeats itself when it comes to the veracity information. The most visibly religious side is the one telling scientists they're wrong over and over and over again.

In spite of all the evidence, they always claim to know better.

The problem for Galileo is that he couldn't share his research on the internet. If he had had something like the internet way back when, we'd probably be a few centuries ahead technologically.
 
That's, that's not how PBS works at all. Local PBS stations are owned in large part by educational institutions and non-profs whose goal... for the last time: Is to make quality programing available to Americans who wouldn't otherwise have access to it.

Why would they emulate a service like HBO whose goal is the exact opposite?

:lol:

As of 2014, there were around 100 million households subscribed to some kind of paid TV service, purchased through either a cable, satellite or phone company. This means that approximately 90 percent of Americans had access to paid television services.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-households-cable-tv-e5e0fb4a00e80b10

The other 10% probably don't own a TV, or want one for that matter.

PBS went on air 46 years ago, when very few Americans had access to paid cable channels anyway, so your point is moot.
 
They could balance out their programming by making cookie monster a republican. He could taunt Bert and Ernie when they walk past by calling them faggots.

Not so sure that would work. I don't even get NPR where I live so I am helping to pay for something I can't get. I guess they don't like mountain people. As a matter of fact they don't really serve rural areas. They are mostly on the east coast and around large population areas that are left leaning.
 
Donald Trump set to ‘eliminate arts funding programs’, cutting off NPR and PBS

Donald Trump set to ?eliminate arts funding programs?, cutting off NPR and PBS | The Independent

government giving $445 million annually. let's see them try and survive in the free market.

cue the"Trump is trying to kill big bird" hysteria.

I actually watch, enjoy and donate to PBS from time to time. NPR ?? Not so much. I think PBS could and should survive without Federal funding
 
Get a room, you two. ;)

You're supposed to wait until I respond to him at least once before suggesting we get a room. I mean, how do you know I'm not running down the street screaming for help?
 
The other 10% probably don't own a TV, or want one for that matter.

None of this refutes anything I said. I stated why it was created. Can you refute that?
 
You're supposed to wait until I respond to him at least once before suggesting we get a room. I mean, how do you know I'm not running down the street screaming for help?

You probably should be.

:lol:
 
You're supposed to wait until I respond to him at least once before suggesting we get a room. I mean, how do you know I'm not running down the street screaming for help?

Then you two should get a room...for non-sexual matters.

 
Back
Top Bottom