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

291–300 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#291

Post by the_other »

neogodless wrote: post #197
Workaccount2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure with Trump this time around it is much less the case. In his first admin there are endless stories of the "Adults" in the room keeping him in check. This time around he was sure to only fill his cabinet with yes men, so no one could keep him reigned in.

I just want to clarify that you're responding to someone who is saying that there are "people behind Trump" - not his "advisors" aka "yes men" but rather people with lots of money and influence, but behind the scenes. This might be Peter Thiel or Curtis Yarvin or The Heritage Group. I'm not sure, and it's hard to know that for sure. But it's a bit of a separate concept from the actual Cabinet Members and what may hav…

So you're saying there's a group behind the state? "A deep state" that's _really_ pulling the strings?

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#292

Post by mikepurvis »

ecocentrik wrote: post #241
mikepurvis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass deportations was right there in Project 2025, the "plan" about which Trump claimed to have no knowledge during the campaign: https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained Dude can barely string two sentences together— can't tell when a photo has been annotated and has no idea what Signal is. Thinks "groceries" is an old-fashioned word. It's pretty clear at this point that it's others behind the curtain running thi…

> It's pretty clear at this point that it's others behind the curtain running this show. It doesn't matter who else is running the show in his name in the same way that it didn't matter who else was running the Biden administration. He's more than just culpable by association. Stop trying to infantilize the man. He's old but he's nowhere a stupid as everyone makes him out to be. He is callous and vindictive and expec…

Oh for sure, I don't think any of this lets him off the hook; the concern is more that the movement is significantly greater than just him. When he's out of the picture there's a whole machine ready to slot in the next guy and keep on the agenda.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#293

Post by testing22321 »

beardedwizard wrote: post #42
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.

I'm a big supporter of NPR but you don't need to look hard to see their progressive bias.

It’s utterly mind blowing how facts and the truth are now labeled a “progressive bias” in the US.

It’s like you have to cover stuff up, deny and lie to be a conservative.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#294

Post by rescripting »

chii wrote: post #169
lazide wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the first orders of business was asserting the executive branch (really the white house) was the final authority for the executive branch on what a court order or court ruling ‘means’. He just has to say ‘nuh uh’, and as long as people want their jobs, that’s it.

> and as long as people want their jobs so it comes to this, where people would have to take a stance, and it requires personal sacrifice on the part of those taking a stance. However, that is what it means to serve.

The idea of “checks and balances” is that systems have the strength to counteract systems.

Individuals attempting to counteract systems is a much, much taller order. People are multifaceted, and those that dissent can be replaced nearly instantly with someone who won’t.

I’m not saying it’s pointless, and individuals asked to do horrible things should do nothing, but it’s much much harder to resist on an individual level than to rely on the leverage that counteracting systems can provide.

Unfortunately these checks and balances have been eroded to the point where they are no longer effective.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#295

Post by laborcontract »

ziddoap wrote: post #234
laborcontract wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you prefer what’s happening in brazil? there are cases where the president has made the lives of individuals miserable in every presidency we’ve lived through. Stating that this is a terrible fact of life and doesn’t justify the harms. what kind of powers do you envision the judiciary having to rectify these wrongs?

> would you prefer what’s happening in brazil? I prefer not to do what aboutism. > what kind of powers do you envision the judiciary having to rectify these wrongs? Isn't that supposed to be figured out already? What is "checks and balances" if they can just be ignored? Impeachment for ignoring supreme court orders would be one example.

Obama dropped a bomb on a us citizen without giving him due process. How should this case be handled? Like i said, american presidents causing untold misery on some people is a tale as old as time. The point is to create a system that is, on balance, just.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#296

Post by Der_Einzige »

timdiggerm wrote: post #244
Workaccount2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure with Trump this time around it is much less the case. In his first admin there are endless stories of the "Adults" in the room keeping him in check. This time around he was sure to only fill his cabinet with yes men, so no one could keep him reigned in.

You're right that last time there were "adults in the room" trying to keep him in check. This time, however, he's often doing whatever Heritage/Project 2025 tell him to do. Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, John McEntee, etc.

Curtis Yarvin, Roger Stone, etc

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#298

Post by sva_ »

hadrien01 wrote: post #2

I suppose this is in response to this executive order: ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... I would add that PBS has this to say about public media funding: > The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that…

What a poor example.

As a German, we are forced to pay much more than that, about 220 euro annually. Only a small percentage actually goes into news and such, most are entertainment programs. I don't know anyone who is younger/my age that is in favor of it or consumes it. It is basically the boomers forcing us to subsidize their shitty crime shows.

Annually they collect about 9 billion euro, no surprise the author of that piece creams their pants at the prospect of being able to fuck the population over like that. I mean how much money can you reasonably expect for reporting news?

People who can't afford food and clothes are forced to contribute to the insane salaries of the moderators of some of the shows. They're also not unbiased at all, they skew heavily left. The system is pretty rotten, can't wait for there to be a reform of it.

/rant

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#299

Post by Teever »

colpabar wrote: post #285
Teever wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I don't like that it gets flagged, because there are some insightful conversations out there.

The subject is important and the budgets of PBS and NPR pertain to the 'curiosity' guideline that Dang loves so much.

What I'd prefer to see is better moderation from users and admins alike to deal with the offending comments but not the entire thread.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#300

Post by rufus_foreman »

nilstycho wrote: post #229
nilstycho wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Here's a link to the diff between first publication and today: https://www.diffchecker.com/CJz1Bn51/

Lol.

"because they had to appeal to all these new Black and Brown nations all over the world" was updated to "because they had to appeal to all these new Black and brown nations all over the world".

Glad that they clarified that for me.

Post reply on HN