They don't need that, when they already have Twitter/X.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Musk Calls for NPR and PBS Defunding
- Thread starter sdwulfdawg
- Start date
- Status
You can't listen to that in your car.
You are incorrect. The general public did not complain about public radio as a whole; rather, some members of the general public complained about public radio. The latest polling data I've seen continues to show strong support for public radio though that support has weakened in some Republican quarters.
The law is still on the books. All the congress has to do is repeal the law or amend it. That's all it takes. The law was amended under Reagan, so it can be done if people know what they're doing. This isn't about the president. It's all about congress. It's money that is directed to the states. That's the change Reagan made. Do these reps want to bring money to their states, or don't they??? That's really the only question. The funding system public broadcasting uses today was created by conservative republicans. This war was already fought.
CPB money isn't based on politics. If a billionaire bought a station, ran it as a non-profit, and applied for a grant, he'd probably get it. Keep in mind at one time William F. Buckley was considered a conservative, and his show ran on public television. So it's been done.
CPB gives money to independent producers too. So if Dan Bongino started a non profit and put together a strong application, they would have to consider it. He would then have to convince non com radio stations to carry his show. He'd probably have to take a pay cut.
USA: Congress should strengthen public media, not threaten its editorial independence
On March 26, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) will hold a hearing on the alleged bias of National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), the country’s two national public broadcasters. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has...
rsf.org
Reporters Without Borders has an op-ed on Public Media and how congress should not threaten editorial independence as we approach the congressional hearing with the CEO's of NPR and PBS.
The stated issue is that the current President is a Republican, and various surveys have shown that well over 90% of the journalists at traditional media (TV Networks, print magazines and newspapers) are Democrats.
I don't think that the administration "hates the media". I think that they... and arguably justifiably... find that traditional media is negative to it and opposed on principal to anything they propose or do.
One good thing that the current administration has done is reduce the access to overwhelming numbers of traditional media reporters while allowing "new media" reporters... many of whom represent a larger "circulation" than the old-line outlets. And it is certainly refreshing that there is a much more frequent and open access to the media (we used to call it "the press" even though nearly nobody today gets their news in printed form) by a wider variety of organizations.
This sounds like a MAGA narrative, but if it's true I'm sure you wouldn't mind linking those "various surveys" for us?
It doesn't matter. Presidents are not supposed to just serve the people who voted for them. They're supposed to do what's right for the country. Taking tax money away from the states isn't good for the country. Lots of red states own public radio stations. It's in their best interest to keep that federal money going to the states. That's what they say they want to do with education and other areas. That process is already in place for public radio.
OK, he hates the NEWS media. He loves the entertainment media. News media has always been negative to the administration going back to Benjamin Franklin. Richard Nixon had the same problem. But this president takes it more than personally, and is using the power of the government against the news media. There are almost ten threads on this subject.
You may think that's a good thing, but the fact is the traditional media gets more eyeballs on new media platforms than the so called "new media" reporters who've now been added. CNNBRK has more X followers than Fox News or Breitbart or any other right wing site. Same with nytimes and nbcnews. You can think these decisions are being made because of unbiased metrics, but the unbiased metrics say otherwise. This is purely about ideology. Nothing more. He hates criticism, and he wants to shut it down. Period.
"Reducing access" is not good in a country that says it believes in free speech. That's what they do in China. The goal here should be to EXPAND access. Become more transparent. That's what the people say they want. They don't want big brother controlling access. They believe in using new media to expand access. That's not what this administration is doing. But it really doesn't matter because the media doesn't need access to do its job. We found out over the weekend when the people who are supposed to make war plans in secret shared a group chat with a magazine reporter.
I am probably taking a brave step here but I will post the link to the editorial below.
The editorial explains how DOGE, without any assistance from Congress or the President, could destroy CPB with the assistance of the FBI and local police force in Washington, D.C. As noted, this happened to another independent agency not tied in any way to the executive branch (except that it is funded by Congress) last weekend.
I hope the editorial is very wrong, but this may be the way it will go down with the CPB and NPR and PBS, all with the approval of the currently sitting President who doesn't have to actually do a thing.
DOGE toppled US Institute for Peace. Here's why that means war
The unqualified randos staffing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency notched a victory last week with their takeover of the U.S. Institute for Peace despite a complete lack of authority ...
www.dailykos.com
The editorial explains how DOGE, without any assistance from Congress or the President, could destroy CPB with the assistance of the FBI and local police force in Washington, D.C. As noted, this happened to another independent agency not tied in any way to the executive branch (except that it is funded by Congress) last weekend.
I hope the editorial is very wrong, but this may be the way it will go down with the CPB and NPR and PBS, all with the approval of the currently sitting President who doesn't have to actually do a thing.
Maybe. The difference is the money from CPB is distributed to hundreds of different places. The money was already appropriated, which means it's been spent. So the money still has to get there. If it doesn't, then the recipients sue for the money. CPB has already sued for money it's due. And we saw that Radio Free Europe has sued for it's appropriated money. So they can lock the CPB building and fire the employees, but the money still has to get where it's supposed to go. The law says the money can't be distributed by the executive branch.
In fact, that's exactly what happened at the Institute of peace:
Institute of Peace sues Trump, DOGE; Court docs describe a series of dramatic clashes
Trump and Musk ordered the institute to reduce its size, as part of DOGE's efforts. The issue, USIP says, is their employees aren't federal workers.
www.usatoday.com
Judge criticizes DOGE tactics after U.S. Institute of Peace sues to block 'takeover by force'
A federal judge set an emergency hearing after law enforcement helped DOGE enter and take over an independent nonprofit agency established under President Ronald Reagan.
www.nbcnews.com
At some point, this whole DOGE thing will go to the supreme court, and they'll have to decide if the constitution allows what's going on.
Last edited:
Robert Douglas
Banned
You can turn on a PBS station, any time day or night (except when they run game shows on the weekends) and give it an hour. You know full well what you will hear. It's going to be anti Trump, anti Elon Musk, and some ridiculous thing about climate change. All BS. President Trump does not like fake, dishonest media. Look what they have tried to do to him for the last ten years! If he can shut it down, the 80 million souls who voted for him will likely applaud it.
You mean Sesame Street is anti trump? What are you talking about? Tonight on PBS they had a documentary about George Bush. After that they did a story about a Cambodian basketball player. The problem this president has is he wants everyone to praise him 100% of the time. When that doesn't happen, he throws a tantrum and blows things up. It's NOT all about trump. There are other news stories to cover besides politics.
I did not save the articles or links. However, I am absolutely positive that if you do your own survey of traditional media such as the NYT, WP, LA Times, Trib, etc. and the traditional TV webs CBS, ABC and NBC you will find at least 90% Democrat affiliation or partisanship among reporters and editors.
My stepbrother, who was in the business, prior to his death about a year and a half ago, thought the number today was closer to 100%.
Saying this is sortta' like stating the obvious.
And if you do your own survey of religious broadcasters you will likely find that at least 90% are Trump/MAGA supporters, and that number is probably way low. Depends on where you shine the spotlight.
So you don't have a source, but you just want to believe what you want to believe.
The fact is that reporters aren't hired based on their politics. Also reporters cover other stories besides politics. When I was in news, I purposely didn't register and didn't vote. I wasn't the only one who did that. You can't get 90% if reporters don't register. Unless you make things up.
But the owners get the final say about what gets put in the press and media regardless of the reporting and editors.
Both the group text and Musk stories were downplayed in order to accommodate the story/photo package on the Sudanese civil war, which is top of mind to most of the Times' readers ... er ... some of them ... um, well ... maybe a few professors in the African Studies Department at NYU or Columbia. There must have been some serious eye-rolling in the newsroom when the Khartoum story was designated as a Page 1 must.
I read a number of similar reports in recent months, but don't save links to every article I read. Do you?
I know that. But the fact is that the vast majority are more liberal or progressive politically.
Nobody is disputing that. However, it is obvious in many instances that flavored adjectives (I was told in journalism classes to avoid unnecessary adjectives) or sidebar references to unrelated facts show the flavor quite well.
You don't have to be a registered member of a part to be "of that party". For years, I worked with the Partido Social Cristiano and its leader, Jaime Nebot, in Ecuador, although I could not yet vote.
But newspaper owners do not read every edition and every article.But the owners get the final say about what gets put in the press and media regardless of the reporting and editors.
I specifically said "traditional news media" which in this context refers to those who cover the national government, the agencies and the White House: New York Times and other major dailies with regional or national influence, the wired TV networks, and the national magazines.
In any case, the religious radio stations with significant audience like K-Love don't do news and political discussion. The preaching & teaching stations that may talk about social and political subjects have decimal points ahead of their audience shares. f
We were talking about major traditional news media here, not local radio stations or even newspapers with lesser circulation and little influence.
For example, let's take Stephanopoulos. He worked with the Democratic Party prior to entering the news field. Name me one Republican that has a similar position and audience size in the national TV network arena. We have to get into the areas of new... or at least "newer" media before we start to see some figures on the right starting to show up.
- Status