101–110 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh. I can't stand Terry Gross. They should call it "Terry Gross Talks About Her Feelings While Interesting Guests Listen And Wonder What They're Doing There."
People have different tastes, and that's okay. Not all shows are for everyone. There's no need for gratuitous negativity. It adds nothing to the conversation and can easily derail it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It occurs to me that a FM radio should be capable of automatically doing this hand-off, thanks to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System If a station signal goes weak, the radio could scan the FM stations for another station which is known to broadcast the same signal (according to, say, an internal cross-matching database, or some other means).
It certainly can, however OTA radio is very localized - to the city usually, by tradition - so it wouldn't make much sense to build such a network. NPR is probably the only radio network that could do a common band cross country, but even then, NPR just syndicates itself to other stations so it's not really in their interest to do so.
I didn't search to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure that federal regulations prevent fully syndicated radio stations across markets, but they don't apply to nonprofits. That's why you'll have an iHeartRadio Top 40 station in every metropolitan area but they all have their own talent.
[1]: http://www.klove.com/music/radio-stations/radio-station-down...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello from Amherst/Nashua. Email me if you want to get a beer sometime. I used to listen to NHPR a lot when I had a long commute one summer and would occasionally tune in. My biggest complaint isn't that NPR is too liberal, only that it is very surface-thought in its discussion of topics. Too often a story will raise what seem to be obvious and interesting (but maybe difficult) questions and the journalist or intervi…
> My biggest complaint isn't that NPR is too liberal, only that it is very surface-thought in its discussion of topics. Too often a story will raise what seem to be obvious and interesting (but maybe difficult) questions and the journalist or interviewer will just move on. Tom Ashbrook ( On Point ) does this especially egregiously. Some of his simplistic (or biased) "So what you're saying is..." moments make me cring…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general it's about story selection. 80% of the "stories of the day" are related to minority rights, empathy stories and a bunch of others. Rural white people are rarely mentioned except in the context of an environmental disaster. I like the stories myself but I definitely feel like the average conservative doesn't feel like they're included in any of the coverage.
Maybe it's my bias, but I feel like I actually hear a lot of stories about rural white people. Especially since the election, every outlet keeps wanting to do think pieces on their plight.
If you summarize every story, you end up with a lot more "affirming a liberal view of the world" ones than "affirming a conservative view."
That said, I still believe the content of the stories presented hews far closer to objective fact and truth than what I've seen from conservative media. So I wouldn't say it's nearly that biased.
Yeah, NPR is great. I'm a daily listener. But you have to wonder. What if there were no NPR, might it be that we'd have high quality commercial talk radio instead? And would it cost as much to produce as NPR does?
Why would that be? If not for the competition with NPR's programming, you mean?
BTW talk radio is no competition for news radio. I don't care for talk radio at all. Facts about global events and sprinkle in a few human interest stories, that's just fine. NPR produces some talk radio shows but most public radio stations air them when no one's listening. But if you meant commercial news radio, then yeah, maybe we would have more CNN, FOX, etc produced news radio if we had less NPR or more spectrum.
Surprised that more truckers haven't discovered podcasts.
I recall that when audiobooks started to become a big thing, truckers, for kinda obvious reasons, were a good chunk of the audience for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? One could argue that the goal of a libertarian is to maximize individual liberty, and plausibly argue that the loss of liberty via taxation is both a faux loss (eg, actually a charge for externalities, not an "extra" cost imposed by others) and liberty maximizing (eg, freedom from concern of unemployment ruining your life is more freeing than the loss of freedom to not pay taxes).
I believe you're describing classical liberalism, freedom with governmental safety nets. Libertarianism would have no safety nets and very minimum police and military. If you can't afford food or health care, that's on you.
Give people money, give them mandatory financial literacy training before they get said money, let them figure out how best to live their lives, remove the minimum wage in the process. I'm also strongly opposed to malum prohibitum laws as well - the government does a poor job of respecting peoples civil liberties out of the misguided concept that any and all evils are preventable - the truth is, sometimes bad things happen, and not every potential bad thing is worth the collateral costs to prevent it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
_Probably_ just a typo, imo. Then again, I've never found two libertarians who could agree on what being libertarian actually means, so maybe not.
Doesn't libertarian mean whatever the hell you want it to be because libertarian?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly can, however OTA radio is very localized - to the city usually, by tradition - so it wouldn't make much sense to build such a network. NPR is probably the only radio network that could do a common band cross country, but even then, NPR just syndicates itself to other stations so it's not really in their interest to do so.
There's a network called K-Love that broadcasts contemporary Christian music across the United States[1]. It's the same programming in every market, apart from the occasional regional flavor in advertising and/or pledge drives. I didn't search to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure that federal regulations prevent fully syndicated radio stations across markets, but they don't apply to nonprofits. That's why you'll have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's liberal as in "tolerate how other people choose to live" and there's liberal as in "spend a lot of money on big government solutions to social problems" and nobody can claim to be libertarian and be liberal in the latter sense.
Why? One could argue that the goal of a libertarian is to maximize individual liberty, and plausibly argue that the loss of liberty via taxation is both a faux loss (eg, actually a charge for externalities, not an "extra" cost imposed by others) and liberty maximizing (eg, freedom from concern of unemployment ruining your life is more freeing than the loss of freedom to not pay taxes).