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

431–440 of 646 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#431

Post by specialist »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #231
nabwodahs wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite specific examples of this "bias?"

Here’s Fox reporting on NPR’s bias: https://www.foxnews.com/media/npr-head-asks-critics-show-me-... As you can see, it’s mostly gotcha quotes and unfair glosses. For example: > NPR also called America’s interstate highways racist. I did not know our highways were racist. I thought they were concrete, but not according to NPR. Of course, it’s a historical fact that many minority neighborhoods were bulldozed to make ro…

Have you read Robert Caro's The Power Broker? It's a biography of Robert Moses.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#432

Post by antonymoose »

not2b wrote: post #32
heavyset_go wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PBS themselves[1] state that CPB funding is what kept local stations solvent, so without funding, they will likely close. They also state that the bulk of CPB funding pays for national NPR and PBS programs, so those will see cuts, too. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gives-final-appr...

Rural stations relied heavily on CPB funding; urban stations get most of their funding from donations or corporate underwriting. So big city public TV and radio will survive, but those in less populated areas might go under unless some other source of funding is found.

Are there many rural-only districts?

Having moved around my PBS districts always seemed to be a metro+rural zone.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#433

Post by ndiddy »

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.

Sure! I'd love to provide you with evidence.

In West Virginia, a state with a population of 1.8 million, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported 193,687 weekly TV viewers and 85,933 weekly radio listeners in FY 2023. https://wvpublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WVPB-Annual-...

In New Mexico, a state with a population of 1.8 million, New Mexico PBS reported 720,000 weekly TV viewers in 2024. https://www.newmexicopbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NMPB...

In Montana, a state with a population of 1.1 million, Montana PBS estimated around 250,000 weekly TV viewers and Montana Public Radio estimated 70-80 thousand weekly radio listeners as of a couple weeks ago. https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/montana-...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#434

Post by nemomarx »

thevillagechief wrote: post #347
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 point here is that "strong institutions" were supposed to stem this tide. Of course, I should have thought through who made up these institutions. In some ways institutions kind of held up pretty well 2016-2020. Which is why I was a little less worried. But looks like that was a dry run. The efficiency with which this is happening now is shocking. Honestly, I'm kind of impressed. If we applied this much efficiency…

You gotta hand it to the project 2025 people, they really organized and got their own planners in the right positions to execute on that.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#435

Post by specialist »

lenkite wrote: post #323
nabwodahs wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite specific examples of this "bias?"

> 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

Why would anyone care about A's criticism of competitor B?

--

FWIW:

"The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC."

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#436

Post by jumpkick »

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…

> because you almost certainly weren't watching those shows on linear television anyways.

I'm just one person, but I definitely am watching the local PBS over an antenna, and so do several members of my family (living in different households).

The local broadcast is excellent quality, I get a good signal to it, never any glitches, and I enjoy the local news and other programming too.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#437

Post by hedora »

atonse wrote: post #12

According to this page [1] PBS only receives about 15% of its funds from federal funding. The rest is from donations. 1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end... So this certainly won't be the death of PBS, as I had feared. Update 2: For the record (easier to respond in this original post than to each response), I am not defending the decision at all. I grew up listening to NPR, and have been o…

Honestly, given the news that the Trump administration now has editorial control over all of CBS, it’s probably good that they’re no longer holding NPR’s purse strings anymore.

Maybe the revolution will be televised after all.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#438

Post by democracy_diy »

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…

Here's a summary of the changes and the impact: https://democracy.diy/issues/save-pbs-and-npr/

The PBS budget has been cut by 15%, and the NPR budget by 1%. That's not enough to end either one at the national level. However, local stations depend on the CPB funding for 50% or more of their budgets. (Local stations provide local disaster alert systems and local programming.) There will definitely be local station closures and major cutbacks in the stations that survive. Large metropolitan areas will be the least affected. PBS and NPR will continue at the national level, as before.

The funding cuts are the result of an executive order that Trump issued on May 1, ordering the immediate cessation of all federal funding. Similar executive orders have been found to be illegal in federal court. (Congress had already guaranteed funding for CPB from 2025-2027, and only congress can take that money away.)

However, congress supported Trump a short while later (on July 24) by passing the Rescissions Act, which officially (and legally) ended all funding for CPB. And that's the reason for the current crisis: all federal funding for CPB is ending by the end of this year, which is only a few months away.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#439

Post by exasperaited »

Devilspawn6666 wrote: post #167
thrownawaysz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just at what BBC is able to do in the UK. This is funny because BBC is a prime example of being a propaganda channel for the government of the day. And that's not new at all just look back at the coverage of the Troubles or the miners strikes in the 70s-80s. Yes it's not on the level of CGTN or Russia Today but BBC is not neutral at all https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-...

The BBC is pro-Establishment rather than in favour of the government of the day. I.E. Strongly pro-EU / anti-Brexit. It's also decidedly pro-Woke.

I do think it is pro-establishment but as a remainer I was exasperated by both the outsized presence Mr Farage got on BBC programming and also the uncritical nature of the coverage of the post-Brexit negotations and treatment of dissenting MPs, so I am not convinced at all the BBC had a particularly pro-EU position.

I think you could argue it had a sort of pro-Cameron lean to it for a while simply because he initially positioned himself as quite a boring centrist, but I don't believe there was any policy alignment generally.

Less sure re: the scottish independence vote but I think in that case the BBC was sort of paralysed by what the outcome would mean for it, and that may have made it difficult for it to comprehensively handle.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#440

Post by vel0city »

Boogie_Man wrote: post #384
vel0city wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such as it being deeply upsetting and disrespectful for a "white" teacher to call a native child "T", because she had trouble pronouncing his native name. Imagine not finding it disrespectful for your teacher to just completely ignore and disrespect your heritage and you're expected to just accept it and be totally OK with it. IMO kids should be taught to be proud of their names. Apparently, that's a political stan…

I agree that it's generally important to respect other people and other cultures, both ethically because it is a ethical thing to do, and practically because it helps us all "get along". I find, if we strip this from the colonial context, or remove it from the racial context entirely (this is now a conversation between two Han Chinese people of the same social class, for example) there is some relationship between wh…

Wanting to be called your name and not liking having a person in a superior position arbitrarily rename you as an example of "American hyper individualism". Incredible.

It is literally someone over you stripping you of your own choice of identity.

Even if we removed the idea of teacher/student relationship from this, are you still fine with people just arbitrarily renaming you? That someone respects you so little they won't even respect your own choice in name, that's fine?

I'm absolutely fine with someone who has a name which could be difficult to pronounce in the local language choosing to go with another name. It is their choice. That's the big difference. They're choosing to go by that name in those contexts. It wasn't just arbitrarily chosen for them.

Post reply on HN