What makes them “left leaning” do you have examples. I don’t listen so I would not know.
-
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
Trump to PBS and NPR: I’m cutting you off…
- Thread starter only1moore
- Start date
The people behind this defunding are opposed to public funding of anything not identified in the constitution. To them, public funding of education is not acceptable. The funding of public radio was based on the need for public education. Public radio grew out of the system of educational radio in this country. This far right group is opposed to all of that. This idea that NPR & PBS is politically biased has nothing to do with why the funding was cut. That was used as a justification. But the cutting of all taxpayer funding was the goal. It's an extreme goal that only a small percentage of people in this country support. But Russell Vought, head of OMB, is one of those people. So he was the one who got this done.
There is nothing in the law that requires any news service at all. During the hearings on this, the question was never asked: How much taxpayer money is devoted to news. Had that question been asked, this could have been solved very easily, by saying taxpayer funds can't be used for news coverage. But that's not what the administration wanted. They wanted to defund all of public broadcasting. So that's what they did.
So...define "balanced programming". Is it a mathematical allocation of time spent quoting one person's viewpoint versus another person's viewpoint, as in a point-counterpoint? Is it a formal debate? Is it an allocation of time to various groups based upon their financial support (which is the way Dutch public broadcasting works for anything other than news)? Is it withholding any form of analysis or examination of the implications of various public policies or private actions? Is it identity-based, which assumes that one's identities determine one's opinions? Is it splitting PBS's or NPR's programming into a liberal subchannel and a conservative subchannel?
I bet you can't do it.
When I was a news director, I would occasionally have to take a call from a local anti-abortion activist. I knew why she was calling. She would call to complain about the fact that we were covering an abortion-rights protest. Never mind that we also covered anti-abortion protests, too. She wanted only her side of the issue to be covered. No manner of counter-argument would persuade her otherwise. In other words, some people will never be happy with anything other than coverage that shuts out opinions or beliefs contrary to their own. Without a workable definition of "balance", that's what complaints about balance amount to, as far as I'm concerned.
Fox News used to use the slogan "fair and balanced". That pretty much destroyed the credibility of those terms.
Otherwise known as the Overton window.
The goal here wasn't "balanced programming." It was defunding public broadcasting using any means possible.
If the issue was taxpayer funding for biased news, they should have spoken to CPB. They're the agency responsible for distributing the money. Instead, CPB was completely defunded and shut down. That was the real goal here, not balanced programming.
A big part of the issue you're talking about is who determines what is balanced? Do we want the government making that decision? Doesn't the first amendment prevent that from happening? Isn't that basically what happened here?
One thing to know is this defunding only applied to 2025 and 2026. The new congress will be able to hold new appropriation hearings for public broadcasting in 2027. This is really only a temporary thing.
One thing I'll add is that at one time, there was something called The Fairness Doctrine. It was repealed in 1987:
Fairness Doctrine Meaning: What It Is and What It Did
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air balanced coverage of public issues. Here’s what it actually meant and why the FCC repealed it in 1987.
legalclarity.org
The purpose of it was to answer some of the questions you asked. The problem with it was that it was putting the government in the position of deciding what was balanced and what was fair. So it was repealed.
The groups attacking public broadcasting don't want the fairness doctrine reinstated. If it was, it would likely interfere with conservative talk radio. So they definitely don't want to impose any form of balance or fairness in broadcasting. What's happening here is the use of funding to control free speech. They were very clear and obvious about that. They put it in the recission bill that was approved. The same language was in the president's executive order that was ruled to be unconstitutional. The fact is that any use of the government to achieve fairness or balance in news coverage is unconstitutional. So anytime someone brings up balance in news as a justification for anything, it's a fake argument. They don't want balance.
Good grief. One had to be living in a cave to not recognize that NPR/PBS had an editorial tilt. (And this is coming from someone who's voted both Democrat and Republican, and now an Independent [who's no fan of either party]).
When I worked in the legislature in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I had a 38-mile one-way drive to the Capitol everyday. I was a regular listener to Morning Edition and All Things Considered for years during that time and even afterwards, but then stopped listening. Was it overnight that its tilt changed? No. Was it gradual? Yes. Was it before Trump's first administration? Absolutely. Over those year, did NPR/PBS get "fat and sassy" and lost its way along these lines given the public funding kept coming in? Undeniably.
I believe some of the responses here are due to whose ox is being gored. Similar to the bill to require AM radios in cars -- would the Republicans be pushing for it if AM radio wasn't such a bastion of conservative talk? I think we know the answer to that. Similarly, and I know I've said it ad nauseam, but if NPR/PBS had instead leaned editorially to the right, as in the direction of Fox News, we all know it would've been defunded LONG ago. (And rightly so in this case, too.). And many of the very same people on this board decrying the current defunding would then be caterwauling for it to be defunded in that instance.
When I worked in the legislature in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I had a 38-mile one-way drive to the Capitol everyday. I was a regular listener to Morning Edition and All Things Considered for years during that time and even afterwards, but then stopped listening. Was it overnight that its tilt changed? No. Was it gradual? Yes. Was it before Trump's first administration? Absolutely. Over those year, did NPR/PBS get "fat and sassy" and lost its way along these lines given the public funding kept coming in? Undeniably.
I believe some of the responses here are due to whose ox is being gored. Similar to the bill to require AM radios in cars -- would the Republicans be pushing for it if AM radio wasn't such a bastion of conservative talk? I think we know the answer to that. Similarly, and I know I've said it ad nauseam, but if NPR/PBS had instead leaned editorially to the right, as in the direction of Fox News, we all know it would've been defunded LONG ago. (And rightly so in this case, too.). And many of the very same people on this board decrying the current defunding would then be caterwauling for it to be defunded in that instance.
But that's not the issue. We have free speech in this country. The media can't be told by the government what to say.
They didn't defund NPR/PBS. They defunded all of public broadcasting. Sesame Street doesn't have an editorial tilt.
There is no fairness doctrine. The government can't set rules about news coverage, whether it's left or right. This is about the role of the government controlling the media. They're doing the same thing with commercial networks even though taxpayer funding isn't involved.
If that's true, what you need to ask yourself is why are democrats supporting this bill. Once you understand that, then you'll see that this shouldn't be about promoting a political agenda, but rather providing public service. Whatever happened to government for and by the people?
So, in other words, all you have are generalized, non-specific complaints but can't point to any examples. So why should anyone believe you?
I had to work under the constraint of the Fairness Doctrine. My opinion was that it wasn't much of a constraint. It functioned much like government financial regulation: it was vague enough so that an auditor, or examiner, or whatever could get you on something if they really wanted to but the primary enforcer of compliance was fear of what someone in government might do rather than what it actually had done.
I think you are somewhat missing the point of my comments, though: what I saw in the post to which I responded were vague, inspecific complaints and nothing that could actually be tested for veracity.
Really, "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. It shares that attribute with pornography.
Well, of course.
Correct. It sounds like they don't actually listen. They probably couldn't name one of the current hosts if their lives depended on it. They don't know the format. They don't know that domestic politics is a very small part of their news coverage. They also don't know that NPR doesn't require its stations carry all of its programming. They give stations advance warning of all topics being covered, so they can pre-empt if they choose.
In another thread I was asked to post examples of NPR being critical of Biden. I posted lots of links about them being critical of the end of the Afghanistan War, his immigration policies, and even his speech patterns and acuity. They were all discussed on NPR and PBS, and the president didn't defund them, call them biased and traitors, or any other names. I can also post links to stories about them being critical of Obama, Clinton, and Carter. They provided full gavel to gavel coverage of the Clinton impeachment.
The current president wants people to believe that if the media is critical of the government, it therefore supports the opposition. That's not true. The constitution was written in a way that it assumes the media will be critical of the government, because it specifically prohibits the government from preventing it. Why is that? Because the King of England used his power to threaten the media before the revolution, and the founders of this country didn't want to see it happen again. It's why whenever his actions aimed at the media actually go to court, he loses. Such as his EO aimed at NPR.
I noted in my response that it was a gradual transition, not overnight, gleaned from decades as an objective listener before I tuned elsewhere afterwards. (And I suspect you know it, too, as many, including some inside of NPR's newsroom, have recognized and/or admitted to its leftward lean. It's not just me.)
It's similar to a lot of people on this board complaining about Fox News' rightward tilt. That tilt is as obvious as the nose on one's face, regardless of one's political leanings. Same thing goes for PBS'/NPR's tilt towards the other side of the fence. Only difference between the two is that Fox News can tilt all it wants given it doesn't have taxpayer funding.
Last edited:
Yes, absolutely -- "government for and by the people." With that in mind, the "mission creep" over the decades of government going beyond its core purpose (and core competency) could fill multiple volumes, public broadcasting being just one of many examples. There's plenty of more work to do to prune the results of this decades-long mission creep.
That's a fake issue. There were many ways they could have fixed any perceived "tilt," had that been the intent. The goal of the president and project 2025 was a single one: defund. It didn't matter if there was a "tilt" or not. Same with VOA. They said so in advance. So did the FCC's Brendan Carr. They all agreed it needed to be defunded. The Heritage Foundation has been seeking to defund CPB for more than 10 years. It predates any perceived "tilt." Now that Russell Vought is running OMB, he was in a position to get it done.
Basing defunding on perceived new bias was ruled unconstitutional.
That's why Vought switched to Plan B and congressionally approved recission. The president threated to "primary" any congressman who didn't vote in favor of defunding. So it had nothing to do with "tilt." It was all about ideology.
So then you admit that it had nothing to do with any perceived "tilt." That's what Vought said too. That's why he targeted it. He got it done in 2025, as intended. Except as I point out, a recission only covers two years. They also didn't count on the fact that the public actually supported public broadcasting, and would fight to keep it alive. Even in red states like Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.
Last edited:
I've said in multiple responses that I would be putting forth the very same argument if NPR's/PBS's tilt leaned right instead. I'm not sure why this is such a controversial stance. Believe me, we all know that Democrats would not have stood for NPR/PBS tilting a la Fox News. If that were the case and the Democrats were in the majority, it would've been defunded quicker than you could blink. I'm no fan of either political party, but let's be intellectually honest here.
My views come from my experience working in the legislative branch in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
My views come from my experience working in the legislative branch in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
No it didn't matter how it tilted. Either way. No government money. THAT was the issue. They only want government money spent on the military and other items in the constitution. As you said, they defunded mission creep. Not tilt. That's why they're also defunding the Department of Education. It doesn't matter if it's left or right. They want it defunded. Period.
As I said, NPR reported news that was contrary to the interests of democrats, including full coverage of the Clinton impeachment. They NEVER called for defunding. Democrats believe in serving the public interest. That's what broadcasting does. It has nothing to do with tilt. That's a fake argument and you even admit it.
Here's what I learned from my experience: Democrats like government spending, Republicans don't. There are a few exceptions, but it's pretty true. So no democrat would ever vote to defund a conservative radio network. AFN is pretty conservative. Never defunded by democrats.
Last edited:
Wow. In your adamancy, you've totally misread my simple points. Not sure why you can't see other sides to this issue. By not doing so, you're only engaging in the very thing you criticize the other side for doing.
PBS's/NPR's/public broadcasting's widely recognized (even some within NPR's newsroom) editorial tilt was definitely a contributing factor, along with the broader mission creep of government. Should taxpayers pay for that?? I think we can all agree that reducing government's overreaching mission creep is a good thing. The company I work for would not be good at running pizza parlors or other things outside of its core competency. Same for government. Not sure why anyone would disagree that government shouldn't stick to its basic purpose/core competency. How could that possibly be controversial?
People are now contributing to public broadcasting of their own free rather than not having a choice in the matter. Certainly nothing wrong with that and I'm gladly continuing to contribute to the classical music station I listen to daily.
One's frame of reference for these types of issues is important. I, at one time, worked in the legislative branch, and that helped form my frame of reference for these types of issues. I also understand that if posters on this board work for a public broadcaster (which, by some responses, it appears that some do), those posters will, too, have a particular frame of reference for which they approach this type of issue. But it doesn't mean views outside of that particular frame of reference are wrong.
Both parties at this point engage in the very things they criticize the other party for doing. I would recommend looking at issues through the lens of common sense, not political posturing. I come to my views independent of Trump, Biden, Huntz Hall, Ferlin Husky, or whoever is in the White House.
With all due respect, given what seems to be your proclivity to (immediately) incorrectly repeat back to me how I responded, as well as an overwhelming adamancy, I'll move on. Have a good one.
Because you keep saying the same WRONG things over and over again.
It's not about tilt. It's about spending money. The president owns the congress so he did it. It's even simpler than you think.
The president said it very clearly: Every republican president has wanted to defund CPB. Even before they did news. It was the principle of the thing. Understand? The emblem of the GOP is the elephant, and an elephant never forgets. They didn't like this idea in the 60s. Now they can force a defund vote, so that's what they did,
This president is shutting down anything he doesn't like, regardless of "tilt." You think the politics matter? He's suing Rupert Murdoch. He doesn't care about tilt. Some say he's on tilt right now.
Trump refiles defamation suit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein story
The president’s complaint revolves around a 2025 report related to a bawdy letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing Trump’s signature.
I always have a good one. Any time you want to throw BS at me, I'll be glad to call it out.
Last edited:
Neither does NPR anymore, so this is fixed. They can continue to tilt all they want. They'll just be doing it in fewer markets since, once formerly CPB funded entities had to really look at where they were getting value, many have dropped some or all of the NPR content they, courtesy of taxpayers, were paying for.
It's a lost cause. Your time/effort is better spent elsewhere.
Only temporarily. They didn't amend or repeal the law, so in 2027, the congress can bring it up again.
That's not really true. The state systems that originally set out to drop programming, such as Mississippi or South Carolina, have reversed their decisions. The Arkansas legislature discovered just how popular PBS programming was with their citizens. As I said earlier, membership money paid for PBS and NPR. The stations had local foundations that also stepped in to replace CPB. So for the most part, it hasn't affected any NPR or PBS programming.
The fact of the matter is any of those state systems were free to drop NPR or PBS programming at any time and still retain their CPB funding. They didn't because the programming was popular, and attracted membership money in ways other replacement programming didn't. They could see this for what it was, which was an attack by the president on the media and the first amendment.