Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

cpb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#141

Post by doublerabbit »

whoknew1122 wrote: post #115
mathgeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. It’s important to remember that while the President issues the orders, there are other actors behind the scenes writing them for him. They have goals that go beyond a single man considering ideological crimes.

I'm not sure how important that is to remember. The president is issuing the orders. The president is chief executive of the country. The president can't pawn off responsibility to some White House staffer or think tank. An executive order is the president's order. Is it useful to look at the people who wrote or lobbied for the order? Perhaps if you want to want to understand the context of an order. But none of that…

> The president can't pawn off responsibility to some White House staffer or think tank. An executive order is the president's order.

He gets to press the enter key sure, however that doesn't stop his cabinet from passing the executive order over for him to execute.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#142

Post by throwawaymaths »

UncleMeat wrote: post #54
laborcontract wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the while, I don't think I've ever loved our country as much as now because I think this is a time where our system of checks and balances can come to shine. I do hope this experience will lead to people re-evaluating their love of FDR. You can like what he stood for, but he was an equal if not (much) greater abuser of the executive office.

FDR's major lasting accomplishments that people praise him for were through legislation. Even things like the threat to pack the court would have happened through legislation. There are some highly visible examples of direct executive action that I hope everyone today sees as authoritarian (japanese internment being the really big one). But FDR's expansion of the executive is the opposite of what Trump is doing. Trum…

> Trump is acting in opposition to the legislation that directs the executive to have its finger in more pies.

is that so true? i don't doubt that in probably 10-20% of the cases this is so, but i would bet that in the vast majority of cases the legislation as written is flexible enough that picking an amount of action that is zero is within the bounds of the law.

i am watching trump carefully for the moment when he turns some dark corners (the abrego garcia case being one) but i am unswayed by the argument that the government reducing its own power is somehow more authoritarian in contrast to an administration that convinced congress to create authority for itself out of whole cloth, which quite clearly goes against the 10th amendment.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#143

Post by jampekka »

whoknew1122 wrote: post #115
mathgeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. It’s important to remember that while the President issues the orders, there are other actors behind the scenes writing them for him. They have goals that go beyond a single man considering ideological crimes.

I'm not sure how important that is to remember. The president is issuing the orders. The president is chief executive of the country. The president can't pawn off responsibility to some White House staffer or think tank. An executive order is the president's order. Is it useful to look at the people who wrote or lobbied for the order? Perhaps if you want to want to understand the context of an order. But none of that…

It doesn't reduce the responsibility but means that this is a wider agenda, not just something Trump comes up with, and so it doesn't end even if Trump is deposed.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#144

Post by andrewclunn »

next_xibalba wrote: post #67
cyberlurker wrote: post #14

Is it unusual for an executive order to claim something like this without any citation or reference? > The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. > Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. > What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.

To wit, during the BLM riots of 2020, NPR published a piece on how looting was a legitimate form of protest. I mark that as the moment they lost both my trust and my attention. A very sad, eye opening moment for me.

[flagged]

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#145

Post by DonHopkins »

SirFatty wrote: post #44
bhouston wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain and reference sources? Otherwise it is a pretty vague comment.

It's not at all vague, unless you haven't been paying attention. Project 2025, for example.

They're fully aware of Project 2025 because they have been paying 100% full attention to people like Trump who have been claiming they never heard of it and that it was Democratic propaganda. So they know exactly what it is because we told them so, we told them so, we told them so, we told them so, and we told them so again and again, and every time they just denied it harder and harder. Now they're pretending they are surprised and never heard of it either.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#146

Post by mjevans »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #109
cyberlurker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listen to planet money and a few other podcasts. They seem pretty fair to me. The only way I could maybe see a progressive bias is that they have representation in their staff of racial and sexual minorities. I see no issue with that. Honest question, does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows? I know they have a lot of minority representation. As usual, Trumps proposed solu…

> does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows? They used to (e.g., Bob Edwards, who founded Morning Edition) but the Overton Window shifted out from under them. Steve Inskeep today lies somewhere in the center-right (a fiscally conservative Never-Trumper is my brief take on him) but that’s not right enough to count as a conservative these days.

It's shifted so far right that looking at news headlines gives me anxiety that we're in a bad enough time / timeline that modern events will be chapters in future history books; assuming we still have books (in any form).

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#147

Post by yubblegum »

bhouston wrote: post #3

The US is so weird right now. You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. Also arresting and trying to deport people for things that are not clearly crimes (newspaper op-eds, etc) and without due process. Very strange times. Right now I have some faith the…

> The US is so weird right now.

The weirdness started in 90s. First it was cultural (TV in 90s, Jerry Springer et al). Then it was electoral (hanging Chads anyone?). Then it was constitutional (Patriot Act). Then it was psychological (all those spooks running various "alt" Q etc.). And now it is lobotomy time. Took almost 3 decades but here we are.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#148

Post by nilstycho »

next_xibalba wrote: post #67
cyberlurker wrote: post #14

Is it unusual for an executive order to claim something like this without any citation or reference? > The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. > Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. > What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.

To wit, during the BLM riots of 2020, NPR published a piece on how looting was a legitimate form of protest. I mark that as the moment they lost both my trust and my attention. A very sad, eye opening moment for me.

Was it this? On August 27, 2020, Natalie Escobar for Code Switch interviewed Vicky Osterweil about her book In Defense Of Looting. The segment was titled "One Author's Argument 'In Defense Of Looting'", and was subsequently retitled "One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'".

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vicky-osterweil/in-...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#149

Post by vel0city »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #125
cyberlurker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you share what the courts have done? What I’ve witnessed is cowardice to hold officials accountable or in contempt for unconstitutional acts.

the scotus (and, notably, conservative lower federal judges) has ruled pretty firmly against trump on the abrego garcia case.

I'm sure Abrego Garcia is comforted by hearing they wrote some words on some paper while he's illegally in a foreign prison.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#150

Post by philk10 »

Seen on Bluesy "The NPR/PBS executive order is a sign of weakness. Republicans were going to put that cut into a rescission bill, which has been delayed as reconciliation took precedence. The likely story is that Republicans found that they didn't have the votes for it, so Trump had to go it alone."
Post reply on HN