Senate Passes Trump-Backed Rescission Plan to Defund PBS, NPR and Slash Bloated Foreign Aid

[Valletta]

JUST IN: Senate Passes Trump-Backed Rescission Plan to Defund PBS, NPR and Slash Bloated Foreign Aid | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

The Republican-controlled Senate narrowly approved a sweeping Trump-endorsed rescission bill that slashes nearly $9 billion in previously approved federal spending—including full defunding of PBS and NPR and deep cuts to U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

It's great that Congress is acting on President Trump Executive Order to defund these partisan organizations.

 

[Pommer]

JUST IN: Senate Passes Trump-Backed Rescission Plan to Defund PBS, NPR and Slash Bloated Foreign Aid | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

The Republican-controlled Senate narrowly approved a sweeping Trump-endorsed rescission bill that slashes nearly $9 billion in previously approved federal spending—including full defunding of PBS and NPR and deep cuts to U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

It's great that Congress is acting on President Trump Executive Order to defund these partisan organizations.

The government shouldn't (help) fund people who might make the government look bad when the government does things that might make the government “look bad”?
Okay, then.

 

[Valletta]

The government shouldn't (help) fund people who might make the government look bad when the government does things that might make the government “look bad”?
Okay, then.

We cannot have one party control the media, and no way in the world should the government be using taxpayer money to do so.

NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff, Says Senior Editor

In a widely publicized op-ed published Tuesday in The Free Press, a senior editor at National Public Radio (NPR) offered a heavy critique of his employer as he

washingtonstand.com

Democrats have the money, they outspent the Trump campaign by two to one. Let them use their own money if they wish, but forcing taxpayers to pay for them is moving toward a totalitarian government. By the way, what happened to "these organizations only get a tiny percentage of funding" from the government?

 

[Pommer]

We cannot have one party control the media, and no way in the world should the government be using taxpayer money to do so.

NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff, Says Senior Editor

In a widely publicized op-ed published Tuesday in The Free Press, a senior editor at National Public Radio (NPR) offered a heavy critique of his employer as he

washingtonstand.com

Democrats have the money, they outspent the Trump campaign by two to one. Let them use their own money if they wish, but forcing taxpayers to pay for them is moving toward a totalitarian government. By the way, what happened to "these organizations only get a tiny percentage of funding" from the government?

The media isn’t monolithic, no matter how hard one wishes it to be.

 

[BCP1928]

Relax, it's all for show. There will still be public radio. I grew up listening to public radio, well before it went national in 1970, and I expect to continue doing so. Oh, and buy a shortwave receiver.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The government shouldn't (help) fund people who might make the government look bad when the government does things that might make the government “look bad”?
Okay, then.

If it was an even-handed approach that held everyone accountable in the public eye, then one could see it as a public good.

However, the criticism that PBS and NPR have a liberal bias isn't merely a fabrication, even independent watchdog organizations have concluded as much.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pbs-newshour

(AdFontes offers a similar assessment)


There are also watchdog groups that keep segment and guest tallies showing that liberal guests and perspectives on PBS outnumber conservative ones by a ratio 5:1. (not sure what that ratio looks like for NPR)


Now, I've heard the rebuttal before of "oh, well that's because the truth has a liberal bias", but that doesn't cut it with regards to media institutions that are getting public funding, because the temptation is often too strong to dangle that funding carrot as a way turn "our truth" into "THE truth" in the public eye.



That's where publicly funded news media creates a tricky circular incentive structure and feedback loop to try to navigate - ethically speaking.
(I believe I've heard that dynamic described before as: a zero sum game between "Watchdog vs. wallet")

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

None of this effects me, but I remember watching trump supporter children watching PBS shows. I've also watched liberal's kids. That didn't watch PBS shows. Since liberal parent's are willing to spend more money on their kids education. Yes, the poor will suffer . But so will trump supporter. I don't get why the Trump and his administration wants to get rid of these program. Since it help his people

​

 

[Valletta]

None of this effects me, but I remember watching trump supporter children watching PBS shows. I've also watched liberal's kids. That didn't watch PBS shows. Since liberal parent's are willing to spend more money on their kids education. Yes, the poor will suffer . But so will trump supporter. I don't get why the Trump and his administration wants to get rid of these program. Since it help his people

​

Taxpayers should not be funding what are essentially branches of the Democratic Party. Conservative parents typically end up paying more for the education of children, paying taxes for public schools while often additionally funding private schools or home schools. The poor will do much better with the elimination of NPR and PBS.

 

[ozso]

There used to be a time, like back in 1970 when PBS started, that there weren't any alternatives. You had a television with 13 channels (half of which only gave you static) and that was it. The only other resource was the public library.

But now there are a plethora of education and information sources. So PBS is basically obsolete. And of course there are also now a plethora of radio shows and podcasts available. All of which are available from wherever one is via their phone.

 

[ozso]

Relax, it's all for show. There will still be public radio. I grew up listening to public radio, well before it went national in 1970, and I expect to continue doing so. Oh, and buy a shortwave receiver.

Yep, there's umpteen sources now for the type of material that's contained on NPR. News radio shows and podcasts galore.

 

[BCP1928]

There used to be a time, like back in 1970 when PBS started, that there weren't any alternatives. You had a television with 13 channels (half of which only gave you static) and that was it. The only other resource was the public library.

But now there are a plethora of education and information sources. So PBS is basically obsolete. And of course there are also now a plethora of radio shows and podcasts available. All of which are available from wherever one is via their phone.

I was talking about listening to the actual radio for news. Streaming is too easy to control, especially from sources outside the country.

 

[ozso]

I was talking about listening to the actual radio for news. Streaming is too easy to control, especially from sources outside the country.

Explain how easy it is.

 

[BCP1928]

Explain how easy it is.

You expect me to know how it works? The major international news outlets have been streaming for years and SW became moribund. But when Russia hacked the BBC stream into Ukraine they dusted off their old transmitter and fired it up and were back on the air. They could do the same with their North America service (up until now on PBS) and DW and even Al Jazeera could too. Radio Australia is entertaining as well, just as good as NPR for general broadcasting content in addition to the news.

 

[Fantine]

You do realize, of course, that the real cause of food shortages is not ethanol but meat. When you consider what a pig eats in its lifetime and how much protein it provides as meat you see the real reason for hunger. We could feed hundreds of people grains if we didn't use them for feed. So let's call The Heritage Foundation article what it is--misleading info financed by the fossil fuel industry.