This is VERY WORTHWHILE to watch IMO, especially the first 35 minutes. It brought me to tears at times. It talks about what is currently going on in our country. It was recorded a few weeks ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGqypLBWjKY
Printable View
This is VERY WORTHWHILE to watch IMO, especially the first 35 minutes. It brought me to tears at times. It talks about what is currently going on in our country. It was recorded a few weeks ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGqypLBWjKY
Thank you, rosa.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosarugosa
I appreciate everyone's support for my husband's medical situation.
Alan, I knew your comment was supporting my husband's political situation. In my family of 6 (10 including spouses) in which he is the only Republican, he needs all the support he can get!
LOL, I knew you'd understand. Loving and being loved by people with differing political views makes us all a little more tolerant of others and fosters an overall better sense of humor. Thank goodness for that!Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
okay----alla the commmotion here reminds me that what we need is access to the appropriate complaint forms, in order to address issues and incidents that might arise. yup. (see photo) hopefully, Al can put summa these on here fdor you kids to use. Hope that helps you some. Thankk mee.Attachment 6756
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebittybobby
I have to say this made me laugh. We need to add the “I don’t feel safe” report form.
Need to check out…. medicare cuts and higher prices AND talk of closing 400 “medicare” hospitals. Just heard a blurb….
ETA: Talked of diverting medicare funds to help fund Iran war?
Good news! Judge blocks trump’s attempt to block funding for PBS and NPR!
https://apnews.com/article/trump-npr...84ead188c35694
Does it violate your first amendment rights for the government to not finance your posts in public spaces on the internet, regardless of the reason it gives for failing to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Congress cut funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which was the major source of funding for individual components such as PBS and NPR. Does it make a difference if the Executive branch instructs departments under its purview such as the Department of Education to also stop using taxpayer dollars to fund some of those individual components?
From a first amendment perspective those broadcast components still have the right to broadcast anything they want so I'm dubious about the idea that public funds must be used to ensure their ability to do so.
wtf? I will have to read the judges reason for blocking this, but it seems ridiculous that we have to continue to give taxpayer money to these organizations. I had not realized that governmental departments were doing it. In addition to the congressional grants. good God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Yes, it's silly that the government should financially back TV and radio shows. These should be the responsibility of big businesses like pharma, insurance companies, legal firms, and the oligarchs.
should government backed radio and television networks promote one-sided, politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I guess the answer to that is sure, just look at the BBC.
Opinion or fact? What side does commercially sponsored TV back?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
"Media bias rating agency Ad Fontes Media has placed the PBS NewsHour within 10 points of the ideological center, labeling it "reliable" and based in "analysis/fact".
Is big bird a woke conspiracy theorist diverting children's minds from the truth of social media sites?
Basically, Trump just doesn't like PBS, which was funded by Congress, and waved his kingly staff to defund.
Our new friends here are both the committeeman and committee woman for the Democratic party precinct, maybe the entire county says DH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I wonder if frugal-one could be friends with local leaders in her area of the Republican party.
We are used to having a lot of friends who are not politically aligned living as we did in the inner blue city. Actually, here, we see more people we know at the Republican gathering than we ever did in the city. Our
committeeman friends may be in the minority party here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I don’t think of PBS as producing much politically charged programming, unlike NPR. I know of what I speak because I listened to NPR for decades.
While working for Wikipedia, the current NPR CEO's TED Talk informed us that "truth is a distraction" and stressed the concept of "minimal viable truth" being "more useful for action". I don't think she told us what type of action she promoted but whatever it was, it seems intentionally untrustworthy.
The "action" she refers to is the ability to move forward with collective decisions and build trust-based collaboration, even when people hold differing underlying beliefs
I have to assume that decades of listening to NPR is evidence of value added.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Oh, I can see where truth might indeed be a distraction when directing people to a favored trust based collaboration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I'd probably have to listen to the whole Ted talk for my unbiased version of what she is getting at. I take it that she is saying the a news source doesn't have to always have the absolute truth, but it has to be good enough for enough of the people to offer some degree of trustworthiness and reliability. And among that degree there should be some common grounds for progress, even with some disagreements. Like we've talked about here before, there is no one particular news offering that is absolutely perfect and all of them have their influencing benefactors among those holding the cards of money and power. Some just have better influences than others. I know I have to get my news from more than one place to come to my conclusions.
I'm not too sure what that has to do with the funding of public radio or TV? One other reason I like it is that I don't get the ads for O-O-O-Ozempic and Burt Law (we don't get paid until you do).
Very little now that taxpayers aren't paying for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Living where we do, we have many friends not “politically aligned”. We have had previous discussions but now prefer not to discuss politics. Interestingly, many that pay attention to what is transpiring are regretting their previous vote(s). If trump is not able to rig the election, he is going to lose bigly!Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
So bringing it up had what purpose if it's irrelevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
What news source(s)do you consider the most or more reliable? I've seen where many consider "social media" their primary source.
It's interesting that the court(s) have determined that the executive order violates first amendment rights but the congressional decision stands, even though it does the same thing.
I'd just as soon have PBS/NPR operate independent of government pressures anyway, although they can still threaten to suspend it's broadcasting permits, as we've seen with late night comedy. My favorite public radio is technically community radio. They have claimed they used to get 10% of their operating budget from the government. When they lost that funding they cancelled a few hours of syndicated NPR programs and replaced them with local features about water quality, local farms, hunting seasons, gardening, etc. They still feature public radio morning and evening news and a few features like Wait Wait. I use NPR online news as a primary news source and find their reporting trustworthy. I consider the change in community radio an improvement and send them donations.
If you follow the conversational flow you'll see that I did not bring it up and like you, simply replied to someone else's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Some time ago I came to the conclusion that all established news sources tailor their product to maximize its profit potential through advertising, donations or subscriptions. I can't think of a single source which routinely presents reliable news rather than their opinion on what their preferred audience might find newsworthy.Quote:
What news source(s)do you consider the most or more reliable? I've seen where many consider "social media" their primary source.
With that said, I have been impressed with the snippets of news and news related product put out by The Free Press. They seem to be trustworthy although I can't bring myself to the point of subscribing to verify, not yet anyway.
Yes, which I referenced in my initial response a few posts upstream from here.Quote:
It's interesting that the court(s) have determined that the executive order violates first amendment rights but the congressional decision stands, even though it does the same thing.
I agree with you, Alan! All mainstream media caters to their audience--even if some are more reliable than others. I did subscribe to The Free Press through Substack for a while, but I discontinued my paid subscription because they didn't convince me they are completely "fair and balanced". I think Bari Weiss has a conserative agenda. But I will say that I am often pulled in by their headlines that require a paywall to get to.
The best thing about Substack is the volume of independent thought represented. You can pick through the smorgasbord of thought to find the authors you like best across the spectrum.
just replying to one point in this post: I don’t see how you or anyone can believe that the congressional decision to stop funding PBS/NPR violates first amendment rights. What is your reason for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
And I will have to read the court’s reasoning to see why the executive order violates first amendment rights.
I will leave it up to the courts to decide what is or isn't a violation of first amendment rights. I don't have a strong opinion either way. What I don't understand is how the executive order could be a violation, where as the congressional ruling is not. Maybe you can help explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I'm just fine keeping tax payer dollars out of public media, thus avoiding government pressures over content, but hope their corporate sponsors and donations can keep it going. I think they serve a valuable news and entertainment source among all the others, as your decades of listening might indicate. There is a lot of content besides just news, especially among the various boguses and cheap entertainment of social medias and amateur misinformed utubers. I have wondered who actually follows "X". No one I know personally.
I still get Krugman's free content substack and find it enlightening, but part of the problem is like you say. I can get the NYT for a dollar a week and public media for free, but $8 a month substacks or Free Press types starts to eliminate certain audiences and you have to get more than one for a full spectrum of news.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
If you enjoy the musings of economists, look at some of the archival works of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. Their ability to incorporate economic scholarship into culture, politics and jurisprudence was an ideological and philosophical awakening for me 40 or so years ago. Thomas Sowell is still around but at 95 years of age he's not as prolific as he once was, and that's a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
One thing I like about Krugman is that often you can just look at his charts and get the whole story without reading. I understand he left the NYT because they were too restrictive of what he wanted to write. I wonder home much of political or big money sway were involved with that.
Attachment 6758
i usta be a fan of PBS to a degree, but have always detested NPR like a sickness. So yeah---some nitwit activist judge is lashing out, on account of his TDS. The sooner we take total control of Greenland, so Those Type of People can be interned there, the better. Their labors can be more usefully exploited in the mines, there. Yup.
“ The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Thomas Sowell
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."
Thomas Sowell
I couldn’t come up with a coherent reason myself, although to me it’s very different because Congress deals with funding and executive orders direct behavior. So I asked ChatGPT about this issue and this was chat summary:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
The practical bottom line
- Congress: Can generally defund PBS/NPR as part of budgeting decisions
- President: Cannot use executive power to punish specific media outlets for their viewpoints
- Key dividing line:
- Policy-based funding decisions → usually allowed
- Viewpoint-based punishment → usually unconstitutional
we know that all White House occupants have directed their minions in the federal bureaucracy to do things that push up against the first amendment rights and I don’t like it regardless of who’s in the White House.
On the other hand, I don’t know why Federal bureaucracies are sending resources to NPR, I suppose it’s in the form of competitive grants. So I don’t like that either.
IL, thanks for looking it up. I understand, but don't agree. It seems to me like the executive order was a punishment for viewpoints, and Trump just passed along the congressional initiative to defund for the same reason, in his usual way of demanding loyalty. Whatever the case, PBS and NPR seem to be getting along fine without dollars from the government as best I can tell. I could see them promoting more commercial advertising to encourage corporate sponsors or more fundraising breaks, but at least they don't promote O-O-Ozempic or Burt Law (we don''t get paid until you do).
I just can’t understand anyone still believing in trump. He is crooked as the day is long. He or his are profiting off the war because of his position and influence plus other deals in foreign countries. Insider info too.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-org...91e949ba1bc00e
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
of course Trump’s executive decision was a punishment for NPR’s view points. That’s why he did it. And that’s why the court said “you can’t do that Donald.”
but as I said, why our federal bureaucracies are continuing to fund these stations is beyond me, and I’m especially annoyed by money going to NPR because that’s the content I know best. PBS put on tons of good programming and I understand that. PBS programming might even be, in the view of Iris Lilies, worth some public money. ;)
I delved a little bit into the idea peddled by NPR executives that NPR is/was so important to rural stations that may not have any other radio service in their area.
And I talked to ChatGPT about it, because as you know, I live in flyover country and I drive through rural areas all the time, and when I pick up NPR stations there it’s the same liberal Lefty programming that exists all over NPR land.
ChatGPT told me these rural stations probably are getting government money to run their technology. These rural stations do not have personnel to create content. These rural stations pipe in their radio content from national NPR distributions, so that is why in Bumfk, Arkansas the NPR station sounds like Minneapolis Public radio.
I just do not buy the necessity anymore for a rural America to have NPR as a radio station. Internet service covers nearly everywhere, as does a cell service. The rural folks do not need indoctrination from the coastal liberals at NPR.
Heard trump’s buddy Orban recently lost the election BIG TIME! Something like 75% voted AGAINST him. Sure hope the same happens to trump/GOP in our elections!
The radio station I stream much of the time and send money to is broadcast from a town of about 15,000 but serves a larger rural area. They are technically community radio and do the syndicated morning and evening news and a few weekend features by subscription to NPR or public broadcasting. Their fund raising claims they have lost 10% of their operating budget and they have replaced some of their public radio features with local news. The rest of the time they have real music people doing the music programing. Maybe they are the exception, however it seems the way it should be everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Per the last sentence., one could say why does anyone at all need an NPR station and how does the city differ from the rural community.
One can think positively.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
I think if gas hits $5 the tide may shift more. People love their cars and that seems like sort of a tipping point. My local stations are still under $4.
Maybe someone can correct me, but didn't Obama have a nuclear limits pact with Iran that allowed unlimited inspection of any supposed processing sites, and at which time Iran filled some of their centrifuges with concrete, and disposed of a lot of unprocessed uranium in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. And then Trump v1.0 revoked basically all of that. I seems like the news doesn't talk about the mess he has himself created.