Trump to PBS and NPR: I’m cutting you off…

[TheBigA]

What they choose to cover is the most clear metric of a bias.

Except that Ira Glass doesn't work for NPR, and This American Life is not an NPR program.

Had the writer simply gone to the show website, they would have seen this:

Our show is produced in collaboration with WBEZ Chicago and delivered to stations by PRX, Public Radio Exchange.

Also, On The Media is not an NPR show. It is produced by WNYC Studios, and they also distribute the show independently.

Uri Berliner, who worked there for years, tried to get NPR to see the light.

After his article, CPB addressed the issues he wrote about. Two years later, they were defunded.

Proving that the right doesn't want balanced news. They want it shut down completely.

 

[kevtronics]

Sure.

None of those are specific examples of the "slanted climate coverage" you claim NPR has done... which is funny, because you also make it clear that you don't actually listen to NPR. You just rely on the slanted coverage of MAGA commentators to tell you what NPR's allegedly slanted coverage coverage is like.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Except that Ira Glass doesn't work for NPR, and This American Life is not an NPR program.

Had the writer simply gone to the show website, they would have seen this:



Also, On The Media is not an NPR show. It is produced by WNYC Studios, and they also distribute the show independently.



After his article, CPB addressed the issues he wrote about. Two years later, they were defunded.

Proving that the right doesn't want balanced news. They want it shut down completely.

True too we mentioned this before when local NPR News/talk affiliates are not at drive time they air other content like local productions, BBC News, Pacifica in some parts of the country and PRX. It’s all about Chairman Carr what he’s ranting at the time.

 

[TheBigA]

You just rely on the slanted coverage of MAGA commentators to tell you what NPR's allegedly slanted coverage coverage is like.

The articles are also more than ten years old. Actual listening would require them to hear voices and opinions they don't like from people they feel should be silenced and not allowed to vote. The articles selectively pick stories that prove their point, completely out of context from all the other stories covered.

When they defunded CPB, they said NPR & PBS would be free to say whatever they wanted from then on. But that was a lie. They're still angry, continue to attack public broadcasting, and are now adding commercial networks to the target list.

 

[umfan]

The articles are also more than ten years old. Actual listening would require them to hear voices and opinions they don't like from people they feel should be silenced and not allowed to vote. The articles selectively pick stories that prove their point, completely out of context from all the other stories covered.

When they defunded CPB, they said NPR & PBS would be free to say whatever they wanted from then on. But that was a lie. They're still angry, continue to attack public broadcasting, and are now adding commercial networks to the target list.

The slant from NPR on Climate goes back many years, decades even. I picked the most topical.

NPR is free to report what they want. Providing an honest assessment of what they reported and the slant they apply/applied does not preclude them from doing that and is not an attack. I really don't care what they report now as taxpayer dollars no longer subsidize them. It's just very telling what they chose to drop once that free money dissapated.

 

[TheBigA]

The slant from NPR on Climate goes back many years, decades even. I picked the most topical.

Just because news organizations report on something doesn't mean it's slanted. They report on lots of things. Critics take stories they don't like out of context to prove their point. You want to believe bloggers who say things you agree with. That doesn't make what they say true. As I pointed out, they don't know the difference between NPR and other public broadcasters.

I really don't care what they report now as taxpayer dollars no longer subsidize them. It's just very telling what they chose to drop once that free money dissapated.

It wasn't "free money." Federal funding requires lots of paperwork, and requires them to follow rules on how it's used. There was government money for reporting on climate issues. The fact is that taxpayer dollars still support state owned public radio and TV. But conservatives lost whatever leverage they once had by defunding CPB.

NPR still reports on climate and environmental issues when they happen. So do many other news organizations. The problem isn't going away. \

From the article you linked:

NPR spokesperson Juliet Barbara told me that the broadcaster “has not eliminated its Climate team or any other coverage areas; we have reorganized our newsroom.”

Believe whatever you want to believe. The constitution guarantees that everyone has that right. But the facts are still the facts.

 

[kevtronics]

The slant from NPR on Climate goes back many years, decades even. I picked the most topical.

What would "non-slanted" climate coverage look like? Even under the current "Drill, baby, drill!" administration, NASA states that "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

 

[CTListener]

What would "non-slanted" climate coverage look like? Even under the current "Drill, baby, drill!" administration, NASA states that "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

Correct. The argument is over whether it's all cyclical and will move in the other direction at some point or if it's progressive with a doomsday scenario as a conclusion, and also whether we as a species can impact it significantly. While I rarely agree with UMFan on much, including the funding of public media, I will grant him that some aspects of climate science are still open to further examination.

 

[TheBigA]

I will grant him that some aspects of climate science are still open to further examination.

I agree with that. Climate is one of those subjects where there are experts on both sides. That doesn't mean you don't report on the story.

In fact, to me, that's exactly why you DO report on it.

 

[Weiserguy]

But you also need a clear-eyed evaluation of the consequences of being wrong. If @umfan doesn't like climate coverage, I want to know if he(?) believes in physics?In chemistry? In the same atmospheric science that allows him(?) to check a weather forecast and then make an informed decision whether to take an umbrella that day?

If he does not believe in physics, I'm going to request he get in his car, point it at a mountain cliff and floor it, Wile E. Coyote-style. Wile E. keeps flying off that cliff, going down into the desert floor below until he goes splat, and then a moment later he's all better, trying to whip up another scheme to catch the Road Runner. The Laws of Physics do not apply to him. (In fact, one of those Laws is gravity, and in the rules for creating the Road Runner series of cartoons, Rule #8 states "Whenever possible, make gravity the coyote's greatest enemy.") But since we don't live in a cartoon reality, the Laws of Physics, et al, do apply to us.

The problem with insisting that climate change isn't real and there shouldn't be accurate reporting on it, damn the ideologues, is that the consequences of ignoring the changes we all see happening around us are likely to be cataclysmic. It's like saying that you can't see or feel radiation, so there's no point in taking precautions. The damage has already happened by the time you feel it. (Speaking from experience, by the way.) So too with the climate. We're feeling today the consequences of decisions made and actions taken decades ago. The decisions and actions of today will become the consequences for our grandchildren.

But @umfan keeps sounding like he doesn't want to hear, or let anyone else hear, news or analysis or opinion he disagrees with. OK then, get in that car and drive off the cliff, then come back and tell us how much of a straw man gravity is.

 

[kevtronics]

I agree with that. Climate is one of those subjects where there are experts on both sides.

Most of that "both-sidesing" of climate change was in the early to mid 2010s, when deliberate cherry-picking of data was used to argue that global warming had paused and would even begin to reverse itself. Unfortunately since then, global warming has most assuredly un-paused itself with a vengeance.

Global warming hiatus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheBigA]

Most of that "both-sidesing" of climate change was in the early to mid 2010s,

The current president is a climate denier, so he's forced government agencies to agree with him. He's now diverting taxpayer money to support coal:

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/12/trumps-coal-maga-organizer-grant-00959916

The news media is right to report on this story.