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

341–350 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#341

Post by flkiwi »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #338
boroboro4 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in executive pushing unitary executive power theory. And there is a chance Supreme Court will support them at that. With such theory your AG proposal not having authority doesn’t stand (in worst case it would be presidents authority).

A chance, but I suspect not much of one. If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court. I suspect that at least Justices Kavanough, Barrett, and Roberts (along with the liberals) would have a problem with that. (Some of the liberals might be on board if the president was Harris rather than Trump, but no way are they going to agree with it while Trump is president.)

If we have that kind of unitary executive, that executive isn't going to care what 7 justices say. And then it's a whole new ballgame.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#343

Post by greenie_beans »

next_xibalba wrote: post #214
kaishiro wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the world are you on about? They published an interview with an author who had - admittedly - controversial takes looting. You make it sound like they were telling people to go smash windows. It's telling that you chose not to link the actual piece: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...

The “admission” was not part of the original publication. They added both that note and changed the title well after the fact. https://archive.is/2020.08.27-191914/https://www.npr.org/sec... The mere fact that they platformed such an extreme, insane viewpoint is the issue. If you can find a similarly sympathetic platforming of a far right nutter by NPR, maybe I’ll take you seriously. Show me one NPR story about the J…

bad media literacy. they even included a trigger warning for readers like that:

> This story was updated on Sept. 1, 2020. The original version of this story, which is an interview with an author who holds strong political views and ideas, did not provide readers enough context for them to fully assess some of the controversial opinions discussed.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#344

Post by triceratops »

whodidntante wrote: post #104

I watch/listen to a variety of news sources - CNN, Fox News, NPR, NYTimes, WSj, as well as a number of smaller podcasts and substacks. There are no longer "unbiased" news sources, all sources have moved to either the left or right. I used to have respect for NPR, today it is, to me, the Fox News of the left, and no different than other sources. I do not have a problem with that, it is what it is. But it should not be…

> today [NPR] is, to me, the Fox News of the left

Oh did they also have to pay an $800m settlement for lying?

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#345

Post by thuanao »

erkt wrote: post #73

Not much of a quote. > “CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government. “In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television o…

What is “the left’s cultural position?”

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#346

Post by triceratops »

nataliste wrote: post #252
AssertErNullNPE wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that article wasn't an interview with an author who wrote a book that took that stance? Having a conversation with someone who has arguably extremist views is very different from holding that extremist view.

Funny, I was told "if a Nazi sits down at a table of ten people, there are eleven Nazis at that table" for years (and in particular by NPR listeners), but suddenly there's now a use/mention distinction for platforming extremist views when it's your side that does it? Color me shocked at the hypocrisy.

> platforming extremist views when it's your side that does it?

Irony it's called "viewpoint diversity" when your side does it, and "platforming extremist views" when the other side does it.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#347

Post by ThinkingGuy »

bluGill wrote: post #84
JSR_FDED wrote: post #8

When I first moved to the US (Bay Area) and discovered NPR in my first week there I almost couldn’t believe that there was such a source of high quality and thoughtful programming. The value destruction of the last few months has been astonishing.

NPR gets the vast majority of funding (last I checked) from members. So make sure you donate at their next pledge drive.

The largest item on their revenue chart seems to be "corporate sponsorships." You know, the companies in all those totally-not-commercials you hear on your local non-commercial stations.

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#348

Post by thisisit »

stackbutterflow wrote: post #245
TwoNineA wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not weird. It's textbook fascism.

It's hard for people to accept it because it raises new questions about the reaction to adopt. If it's true then you know you should resist or you're complicit. A lot ot of 20/30/40 something Americans are going to have very difficult conversations with the new generations in 30+ years.

Well given that the country has a penchant for altering history such that “you did not see/hear what you actually heard and saw with your own eyes”, there are not going to be any difficult conversations. Civil war was for “state rights” while quietly omitting the slaves part.

Even today when the impact of tariffs are clear people rattle off everything to cover their bases - It will bring back jobs. It will create negotiation leverage for US. (If it did and China ate some of those tariffs what jobs are coming back to the US). These same people will deny their role in the mess they are creating.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#349

Post by LPisGood »

next_xibalba wrote: post #214
kaishiro wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the world are you on about? They published an interview with an author who had - admittedly - controversial takes looting. You make it sound like they were telling people to go smash windows. It's telling that you chose not to link the actual piece: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...

The “admission” was not part of the original publication. They added both that note and changed the title well after the fact. https://archive.is/2020.08.27-191914/https://www.npr.org/sec... The mere fact that they platformed such an extreme, insane viewpoint is the issue. If you can find a similarly sympathetic platforming of a far right nutter by NPR, maybe I’ll take you seriously. Show me one NPR story about the J…

If the best you can do is that they occasionally interview left leaning authors with out-there views, I don’t know what to tell you.

The core programming, things like The Sound of Ideas, Marketplace, Morning Edition, the hourly news updates, etc hardly have “gag worthy” bias.

Regarding platforming a J6 insurrectionist: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/g-s1-29188/new-npr-series-a-g...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#350

Post by sorcerer-mar »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #270
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS (and other courts) can deputize whoever they want pretty much. And this is what the states' National Guards are for (very scary thought)

The "states" national guard can be federalized at a moment's notice. The president need only give the order and put his signature on it. At that point, they report to the President and no one else. This isn't theory, Alabama's was federalized some time when my dad was a kid. The president never rescinded the order.

Eh this isn't quite clear. National Guardsmen take an oath to the Constitution and to follow the orders of both the President and the Governor. Above all, their oath is to the Constitution.

Both SCOTUS and a Governor saying that their oath to the Constitution compels (or at least authorizes) a certain course of action would be convincing to some, I'm sure.

Post reply on HN