Trump to Take Down the Left-Wing Censorship Cabal

[Yarddog]

I have read the article and what I heard were a lot of liberal journalist whining and having meltdowns because Trump won and people are not buying into their nonsense. It reminded me of those liberal meltdown compilations that are going viral on the internet.

The article also had links which provided Trump's speeches were he said the things which were claimed. I don't pay much attention to what claim because I want to hear the actual quotes.

 

[HARK!]

I want to hear the actual quotes.

Oh the irony!

 

[Yarddog]

Oh the irony!

I guess you don't understand irony either.
Journalist are constantly taking a quote and twisting it out of context so that it becomes something new. Liberal journalists have done this to Trump several times and Conservative journalists do this to Harris and Biden. The only way to get a true understanding is listen what a person says in context.

Ironically, most Americans don't do this and take the media at their word.

 

[hedrick]

So far you're short on facts. Propaganda isn't facts.

I look forward to Trump and team pulling federal funding for NPR.

View attachment 357487

I'm offended that I'm paying for that hackery.

Less than 1% of their funding is from the Federal government, so that will have little effect.

 

[HARK!]

Less than 1% of their funding is from the Federal government, so that will have little effect.

Good, then there should be no complaints when Team Trump cuts them off.

 

[probinson]

Less than 1% of their funding is from the Federal government, so that will have little effect.

At the same time, however, it is misleading for NPR to assert, in rebutting Musk, that it receives but 1 percent of its funding from the federal government. The reality is more complex — and should raise questions for those who care about the future of “public media.” ​

​

NPR may receive little direct federal funding, but a good deal of its budget comprises federal funds that flow to it indirectly by federal law. Here’s how it works: Under the terms of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act, funds are allocated annually to a non-governmental agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, overseen by a board of presidential appointees. That corporation, in turn, can choose to support original programming produced by public television or public radio — but, by law, must direct much of its $445 million funding (scheduled to top $500 million next fiscal year) to local public television and public radio stations across the country, via so-called “community service grants.” ​

​

Here’s where things get tricky. Local stations, if they want to broadcast “All Things Considered,” “Fresh Air” and other programming produced by NPR or competitors such as American Public Radio, must pay for it. Indeed, in its consolidated financial statement for 2021, NPR reported $90 million in revenue from “contracts from customers,” a significant portion of its $279 million and much more than 1 percent. Such revenue was exceeded only by corporate sponsorships, which totaled $121 million. One can think of these funds as federal grants that have been sent from Washington — but returned to it.​

​

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/

​

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nothing says defending freedom of expression like sueing and defunding media when they report something you don't like.

You mean like this:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that federal officials leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision should not affect typical social media users or their posts.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-biden-administration-453b6ae8794548f960c4ebf72a534aff

So I guess it is OK for the feds to threaten media over stories they don't like by claiming they are 'misinformation'. And who gets to decide what misinformation is?......the feds of course.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The public airways belong to the People, not to a minority of Liberal corporate propagandists who seek to brainwash the People into accepting their Tyranny.

That's how China is run......and even Russia follows that same program years after the 'death' of communism.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Age of Misinformation.

That seems to depend of which side of the political spectrum your are on......

 

[civilwarbuff]

the right not to express views you don't like

I love having people here express those views; it is so enjoyable to make fun of them

 

[civilwarbuff]

The only way to get a true understanding is listen what a person says in context.

Ironically, most Americans don't do this and take the media at their word.

Actually what REALLY happens is when people do hear the quote in context they are already politically inclined to twist the meaning into something they agree with as espoused by their political choices or they they dismiss/ridicule the meaning into something they can attack/repudiate when espoused by their political opposites. I don't think most people can or do interpret a message without it being colored by their political beliefs (myself included).

 

[Yarddog]

Actually what REALLY happens is when people do hear the quote in context they are already politically inclined to twist the meaning into something they agree with as espoused by their political choices or they they dismiss/ridicule the meaning into something they can attack/repudiate when espoused by their political opposites. I don't think most people can or do interpret a message without it being colored by their political beliefs (myself included).

I can't say that I disagree with you. But, what I said is correct. An unbiased person needs to read the quote in context, which helps see the bias in how people interpret the quote.