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

481–490 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#481

Post by scruple »

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's very important and very transparent. Steve Bannon is out here telling the entire world what the playbook is for anyone willing to pay attention.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#482

Post by whodidntante »

alabastervlog wrote: post #129
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…

> the Fox News of the left When I watch Fox News it's usually pretty easy to spot several things that are simply made-up per day. Including entire stories. You hear much of that on NPR? [EDIT] FWIW I think NPR news is god-awful, because they focus way too much on horse-race politics crap and Monday-morning quarterbacking campaigns, I suppose because they're so scared shitless by accusations of bias that they prefer t…

I will give you that, sometimes fox news is like a ChatGPT hallucination. And the ads are unbearable - my pillow and vegetable pills.

This is more than made for by the interviews - Trump, Vance, Harris, Zelensky, the doge team, etc.

Speaking of unbearable, NPR's "soft stories" are invariably about someone's sob story. Ok, I get it, there are a lot of hard luck stories out there, but they seem to relish in misery.

All in all, neither are great, but none of the mainstream media are. I do like "All in" podcasts :-)

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#483

Post by insane_dreamer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #457
insane_dreamer wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS' ruling on Trump's presidential immunity blew a massive hole in the guardrails.

> SCOTUS' ruling on Trump's presidential immunity blew a massive hole in the guardrails. Not really; aside from the various limitations on it (full immunity only for a few core Constitutional functions, case-by-case immunity for other "official acts" depending on impact to function of the office, no immunity aside from that), criminal prosecution after leaving office is almost never the decisive constraint on Preside…

Yes, I agree that the Trump faction gaining control of the GOP is a huge problem and without it we'd be experiencing wannabe king Trump 1.0 instead of de-facto king 2.0.

But while technically you're correct, the implications of that ruling was that Trump could not be held accountable for the Jan6 attempted coup, giving him a huge boost to do whatever he wants with impunity. The significance was more psychological than technical. I don't believe we would see such bold power grabs by Trump if the SCOTUS had ruled against him.

Because it's clear the strategy now is 1) break all the rules; 2) let them sue; 3) if it ever makes it to SCOTUS our chances are decent, besides the fact that by the time it makes it through the courts to SCOTUS it will be too difficult to reverse what's been done. And in the meantime, use all the power of the Exec Branch to neutralize anyone who might oppose (legal firms, gov agencies, states, federal judges, etc.).

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#484

Post by jmward01 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #449
jmward01 wrote: post #288

People love the idea that the pendulum always swings back but that is survivor bias. The graveyard of history is filled with civilizations where the pendulum failed to swing back the last time. I have no faith that the US is exempt from history, but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to defy it. No reason we can't at least try to push the pendulum back one more time and put in place better safeguards. Get out th…

Bold of you to assume that voting will be able to change anything - will future votes not be rampant with corrupt practices? What controls will still be in place to ensure that?

Use it or loose it. Voter fraud has never been an issue, it has been voter disenfranchisement that has been the biggest problem. It is very likely that elections going forward will see that trend rise dramatically all while keeping people, incorrectly, focused on fraud. Either way, don't give up. Vote. Get others to vote. Help them get over the hurdles placed in front of them to block their voting. It is possible to make a difference even if it is harder now than it was before.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#485

Post by whodidntante »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #185
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…

When I asked around in mixed political spaces which news sources were trustworthy, NPR was the only answer people on both sides of the political divide ever gave. After reading it for several years after, its reporting it somewhat reminds me of the BBC. I think its relative bi-partisanship is something that should be cherished instead of trying to crowbar it into a particular bias.

I agree that NPR is "trustworthy" in the sense that what they directly say is usually reliable, what I have a huge problem with is what they leave out or how they redirect.

A perfect example of this is in my previous post. I was listening to their "interview" with their CEO, and the interview was put into context of her recent senate hearing (which I knew nothing about). She sounded like a reasonably well informed CEO with good intentions, doing what is best for the public.

I decided to listen to her senate hearing (which I would not have even thought of doing because I did not even know she did this), and came out with the opposite impression - someone who obfuscates, lies, and should not be responsible for the public good.

Was there anything said in the NPR issue that was incorrect or a lie ? No. They are a lot smarter than that. They are clever people who think they are smarter than everyone else, but are not to be trusted.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#486

Post by transcriptase »

triceratops wrote: post #471
transcriptase wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inserting it into every conversation is an example of them playing to certain audiences, particularly when it’s being mentioned in a way that appears to be checking a box versus being relevant or substantial. I refrained from including in my original reply that another issue is that those they’ve increasingly tailored their personas/programming to legitimately can’t see any issue with how CBC has changed in the last…

I mean sure the diversity angle could definitely be about playing to certain audiences. Climate change ain't though. You believing it's proof of that tells us about your own biases. Also I missed this in your original comment > Combined with things like job listings explicitly but professionally saying “white men need not apply”, This sounds shockingly illegal. Do you have an example?

Perhaps you’re assuming that I’m a climate change denier or that I take issue with it being discussed because I included it as an example. Neither is true. My point is that there was a period of time when listeners would tune in and hear things like “Coming up in the next hour, how climate change is impacting the Jazz scene in Toronto’s entertainment district!”. Perhaps they’ve dialed it back recently but it was the equivalent of keyword stuffing in radio form, and rarely anything worth listening to when considering a coast-to-coast audience.

As far as the job posting controversy it has happened a few times, the worst being where they put “any race except Caucasian” in a casting call for a kids tv host, and “preference given to women etc” on most others. It’s legal in Canada though you’re not supposed to say the quiet parts out loud like the former example.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#487

Post by GiorgioG »

thisisit wrote: post #333
GiorgioG wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that there were no enablers and puppet masters before this administration? Serious question, and this has nothing to do with claims that Biden was mentally unfit for the office.

Even if there were, what is your point? It seems to me that lot of people have never heard of “two wrongs don’t make one right” and resort to whataboutism as if they are making some thoughtful comment. And no, “just asking questions” isn’t a great point either.

Who said it was 2? I'm suggesting this has been a problem a very long time.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#488

Post by pdabbadabba »

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #368
pdabbadabba wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, I'm confident that, if they had reinstated it, it would have been struck down by the Supreme Court by now for violating the First Amendment.

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't prevent you from saying anything, it just says for certain topics, you must also present the opposing view.

Yes. That's compelled speech which is also disfavored under the First Amendment. (It would probably be fair to say "prohibited" -- but, as always, it's complicated.)

Of course, as I'm sure many here know, the Fairness Doctrine was previously upheld in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. So it's not totally clear cut. But I expect the current Supreme Court would have a very different view.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#489

Post by kbelder »

xienze wrote: post #117
josefritzishere wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that many of us, somewhat passively, including myself, have been using the term "strange" to describe the American poltitical situation. I think this is to avoid using more charged political terms that are actaully more accurate like fascist, authoritarian, dictator... These are dictionary words which are increasingly apropos.

> I think this is to avoid using more charged political terms that are actaully more accurate like fascist, authoritarian, dictator Because those words have been overused to the point of no one caring anymore. For those too young to remember, George W. Bush was _also_ called “literally Hitler”, a fascist, dumbest man alive, you name it. The left’s go-to of labeling every single Republican “Nazi” for decades is partia…

This is true, but attacks on the democratic presidents have been just as moronic.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#490

Post by whodidntante »

mjevans wrote: post #123
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…

Under oath, with only offhand recollection of maybe facts, many people would prefer to say as little as possible. That seems only natural given the potential for accidentally lying if something remembered offhand turns out to be untrue or taken incorrectly. Contrast with a lower stakes interview, likely prepared for at least in general if not with vetted and researched questions?

Well, she had plenty of time to reflect on what she did not remember and had a perfect opportunity in the NPR interview to address that.

Watch the Senate hearing. This was not a person that did not want to make an offhand statement. This was a person who clearly did not feel comfortable with what she knew she said to "her audience" but not comfortable when it came to a public audience. Many, many times. She sounded like someone repeatedly pleading the fifth.

My opinion, of course.

Post reply on HN