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

Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

cpb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 646 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#421

Post by autoexec »

radiofreeeuropa wrote: post #233
nemomarx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large groups voting for "tear it all down, we don't trust institutions" wasn't a sign for you back in 2016? what were your priors before this year?

My "holy shit, we're in for... interesting times, and like, soon " moment was when Trump suggested his supporters might shoot Hillary if she won ("If she wins, I can't do anything about it. But the 'Second Amendment people'...."), and didn't see a huge hit to his popularity, and supporters in his own camp distancing themselves, immediately. Norms are dead, you can just suggest assassination of your opponent and still…

That's what worries me. young kids today have no idea how fucked up things are right now because this is all they've ever known.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#422

Post by tptacek »

ndiddy wrote: post #415
tptacek wrote: post #296

This is a giant thread full of people lamenting the demise of public broadcasting so it seems like someone should write the comment that points out that CPB doesn't do PBS programming. They don't develop content. They're a grantmaking organization that manages the distribution of the congressional PBS appropriation. The actual PBS and NPR shows you're familiar with are generally developed and produced privately, and…

PBS stations in major markets will likely be able to carry on due to donations and corporate underwriting, but stations in rural areas (the types of places where Internet streaming is less viable due to poor infrastructure) will be heavily affected. Some rural stations get up to half their budgets from the CPB, and these cuts will likely make them have to shut down. In heavily rural states like West Virginia, Alaska,…

I think the idea that people in rural markets are watching PBS OTA linear content is a claim that will need to be supported with evidence. Linear television is dead, pretty much everywhere.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#423

Post by autoexec »

School-Cotton wrote: post #241
thevillagechief wrote: post #13

Woah! This stuff is unwinding faster than my priors. I'm going to have to re-evaluate everything I thought true about the US. I just always assumed "strong institutions" meant something here. That it was all a house built on sand is disconcerting.

Europeans seem to understand this better than Americans, because the US has never really devolved from democracy into authoritarianism, but several European countries have. That's why e.g. in Germany it's possible to ban political parties that have as their goal the overflow of the democratic order.

It's only been a couple hundred years or so for us so I guess this is just our turn then.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#424

Post by burnte »

duped wrote: post #328
burnte wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I swore off of cable news many years ago because they're ALL toxic. They all have to keep people watching so it's stuffed full of breathless journalism making you think something major is happening any moment now. We'd all be better served with NO 24/7 news networks at all. NPR is not breathless, and is very fair. I hated Fox News because it's so full of lies. I hated CNN because it's making mountains out of…

> NPR didn't do that, ever. Right now I'm drinking out of my NPR mug that I pay $12/month for. I've been a daily listener since college, it's my default radio station in the car, and when I road trip I like searching for the local station. But I disagree with this. There are a number of nationally syndicated shows (at least, in all the markets I've lived in) that I'd put in this category. 1A just off the top of my he…

Sorry, to be clear I was referring to programming labeled as news only, not non-news content. There's lots of opinion content, but they don't call it news, unlike cable news networks.

I didn't mean to say there's never incorrect or partisan content.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#425

Post by potatocoffee »

tptacek wrote: post #422
ndiddy wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PBS stations in major markets will likely be able to carry on due to donations and corporate underwriting, but stations in rural areas (the types of places where Internet streaming is less viable due to poor infrastructure) will be heavily affected. Some rural stations get up to half their budgets from the CPB, and these cuts will likely make them have to shut down. In heavily rural states like West Virginia, Alaska,…

I think the idea that people in rural markets are watching PBS OTA linear content is a claim that will need to be supported with evidence. Linear television is dead, pretty much everywhere.

I watch OTA television.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#426

Post by staticautomatic »

tptacek wrote: post #296

This is a giant thread full of people lamenting the demise of public broadcasting so it seems like someone should write the comment that points out that CPB doesn't do PBS programming. They don't develop content. They're a grantmaking organization that manages the distribution of the congressional PBS appropriation. The actual PBS and NPR shows you're familiar with are generally developed and produced privately, and…

PBS doesn’t make PBS content either. They acquire it from people who make it using CPB money, among others. Then the stations that don’t make the content license it from PBS, mainly using CPB money. And they use it to attract members/donors.

You’ve framed this as if the disappearance of CPB and its money is basically a big nothing-burger, which is extremely far from the truth.

Source: I work in the system at a level with visibility into these things.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#427

Post by smithkl42 »

nabwodahs wrote: post #380
lenkite wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you cite specific examples of this "bias?" Read https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru... by NPR veteran that shows how NPR developed a left wing bias over time. Also at https://archive.is/H7QNM https://washingtonstand.com/news/npr-has-zero-republicans-87... NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff

"NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff" How many "Republicans" applied?

Undoubtedly that's the reason for the under-representation of women as Fortune 500 CEO's. They're just not applying.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#428

Post by tptacek »

potatocoffee wrote: post #425
tptacek wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea that people in rural markets are watching PBS OTA linear content is a claim that will need to be supported with evidence. Linear television is dead, pretty much everywhere.

I watch OTA television.

I listen to linear NPR. But I know what the statistics are. None of this is going to be here 20 years from now.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#429

Post by lenkite »

autoexec wrote: post #405
nabwodahs wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff" How many "Republicans" applied?

I guess they expect NPR to have diversity hires to meet republican quotas now?

Of-course, I am sure a government funded 100%-republican news and broadcasting agency with news pieces spouting right-wing talking points trotted out with regularity would be fully accepted as an excellent use of taxpayer money in the public interest by democratic politicians.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#430

Post by esseph »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #301
esseph wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes 0 sense Ground news links all of their sources on a per article basis and you can simply scroll left/right through each news source. And you can add your own sources!

You didn't address the meat of my argument. The sources are irrelevant. They try to tell you the media bias which can itself be biased and gamed and which (I think) leads to readers not critically examining sources for themselves.

If somebody is going to be uncritical I don't see how any of this actually helps, but that's totally on them.

I'm not going to argue with them saying that Fox News is right wing or that MSNBC is more left wing. "Duh".

Maybe we're looking at this from a different angle, or maybe we just use the service in different ways.

The "bias" part that is relevant is showing you the difference in headline and contents between dozens or hundreds or thousands based on historical leanings of the news org, and which ones are even reporting on a particular topic.

It's not saying a particular article leans a particular way, it's saying the source does.

Post reply on HN