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

551–560 of 646 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#551

Post by cryptonector »

sleet_spotter wrote: post #206
delichon wrote: post #132

I hear many things on broadcast media that are contrary to my values, and tend to prune those sources from my media diet. When I am obliged by law to support those sources anyway, I get resentful. So I have been wishing for this since Ronald Reagan proposed it. To me the bright line of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is crossed at least in spirit when the state seizes a dollar from a…

While I sympathize with the feeling, it’s a stretch to say “obligated by law”. You pay taxes, which your legally-elected representatives decide how to spend. We elect them to speak and choose on our behalf. It isn’t a “loophole” when this runs afoul of an individual’s values. It is simply that we have a representative government that makes decisions by majority votes. I don’t agree with most defense spending, but I a…

> While I sympathize with the feeling, it’s a stretch to say “obligated by law”. You pay taxes, which your legally-elected representatives decide how to spend.

Without limit? If Trump and the Congressional GOP force a bunch of tax-funded in-your-face right-wing propaganda that would be ok with you because "[y]ou pay taxes, which your legally-elected representatives decide how to spend"?

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#552

Post by cryptonector »

sleet_spotter wrote: post #461
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While I sympathize with the feeling, it’s a stretch to say “obligated by law”. You pay taxes, The number of steps that “Pay Taxes” is removed from “Literally At Fucking Gunpoint” is not as many steps as you might think.

I’m not sure if you are intentionally trying to miss the point. The comment was claiming they are obligated by law to support media they don’t agree with. We are all equivalently obligated by law to not steal or commit other crimes. We pay taxes. They are part of the contract of our society. What our representatives decide to spend them on doesn’t change that.

"We are all [...] obligated by law to not steal or commit other crimes" is NOT equivalent to being "obligated by law to support media [one does not] agree with". Not even remotely. Negative obligations != positive obligations.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#553

Post by toomanyrichies »

WalterBright wrote: post #548
ethbr1 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink: $600 + $120/month Radio: $20 + $0/month

Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene. Pretty much everyone has a cell phone.

"Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene."

Did he?

> As it turns out, the offer wasn’t as generous as it seemed, it’s really more of a new customer promotion.

> The Register pointed out that if anyone goes to sign up for the “free” service, there’re hit with a harsh reality: you have to pay for the equipment.

> But try to sign up for the ostensibly “free” service in an area Starlink has designated as a Helene disaster zone, and surprise: You still have to pay for the terminal (normally $350, but reportedly discounted to $299 for disaster relief, though that’s not reflected in Starlink’s signup page), plus shipping and tax, bringing the grand total to just shy of $400...

> According to the Starlink Helene page, new customers who qualify for free access will be automatically moved to a paid $120-a-month residential subscription tied to the location the terminal was set up for after 30 days.

> Even if you’re a victim that happens to be an existing Starlink customer, if you want those fees waived, you’ll have to file a waiver and then wait for it to be approved. [1]

Not sure why you're taking the world's richest sociopath at his word. And even if he were as charitable as you say (which I obviously don’t stipulate), that would mean... what? We wait for another Hurricane Helene to hit every person without internet access? Then wait even longer for a billionaire to bail them out?

1. https://qz.com/elon-musk-free-spacex-starlink-hurricane-hele...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#554

Post by [deleted] »

dizlexic wrote: post #512
esseph wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public radio and local broadcasting has been gobbled up by right-wing sources, including Sinclair Watch this clip: https://youtu.be/xwA4k0E51Oo?feature=shared

As a long time listener of AM radio. Literally nothing has changed from a programming perspective. The only noticeable difference is who supplies the on the hour news.

[deleted]

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#555

Post by cryptonector »

bix6 wrote: post #152
delichon wrote: post #132

I hear many things on broadcast media that are contrary to my values, and tend to prune those sources from my media diet. When I am obliged by law to support those sources anyway, I get resentful. So I have been wishing for this since Ronald Reagan proposed it. To me the bright line of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is crossed at least in spirit when the state seizes a dollar from a…

So the government should just not say anything? Let’s just get all our news from X, the famously truthful platform!

The government is allowed and required to say things about the current state of the law (i.e., they must publish the law, and they may educate the public about it, and they must enforce it). The government is not required and perhaps should not be allowed to say anything promoting specific political opinions or promoting specific Acts that have not passed yet. By "say" you [I think, and therefore] I mean as in publish with taxpayer money, because naturally elected officials and even appointees should be able to speak with anyone, even interviewers, and publish on their own dime as long as they don't do anything to prevent the opposition also speaking in that way, but publish? as in print or broadcasting? OP here thinks not, and OP has a very good point.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#556

Post by ethbr1 »

WalterBright wrote: post #548
ethbr1 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink: $600 + $120/month Radio: $20 + $0/month

Musk gave out free Starlinks during Hurricane Helene. Pretty much everyone has a cell phone.

500 Starlinks? https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elon-musk-sta...

As opposed to 95% of US homes that have at least one radio receiver? https://www.insideradio.com/inside-story-radios-in-more-u-s-...

Usable digital cell service still doesn’t reach a good chunk of rural Americans.

I’m not sure why an expensive, technically-complicated solution would be an alternative to a free, simple, widely-deployed one.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#557

Post by BeetleB »

dredmorbius wrote: post #542
BeetleB wrote: post #129

I identify neither as a liberal nor as a conservative, but outsiders will likely see a left bent in me. The thing about PBS and NPR: I just don't have any alternatives! Wherever I've lived, all the other radio stations/channels just suck - liberal or not. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News totally suck. ABC, CBS, NBC mostly suck. The half-good radio stations are just way too biased and make NPR/PBS appear like paragons of neutralt…

The flagship big-city / large-state stations will very likely continue to function. The real hit for this action will be in rural regions where alternatives to the local NPR translator station are typically religious stations, right-wing talk, and increasingly Spanish-language programming. If you've access to streaming media, podcasts, or shortwave, you still do have options. There are several excellent national broa…

That's nice, but I'm not looking for news - I already get that from better sources than NPR. I'm looking for good, thoughtful, engaging content.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#558

Post by BeetleB »

cryptonector wrote: post #550
BeetleB wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say it isn't that our institutions were built on sand, more that its hard to stop a madman who broke into your house with a chainsaw (a la Musk) from knocking down a few load-bearing walls. This isn't due to one man (Musk) or a rogue government agency, or even the executive branch. This is Congress, which tells you how bad things have gotten.

> This is Congress, which tells you how bad things have gotten. Ok, but to be clear, Congress gets to. Congress has done about-faces like this before, yet the Republic is still here.

> Ok, but to be clear, Congress gets to.

Obviously - there's no implication of processes not being followed.

My point, which mirrors yours, is that this isn't the result of a rogue actor. It's a result of collective action.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#559

Post by bix6 »

ptero wrote: post #534
saagarjha wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A durable majority doesn't even support funding education, and it is losing federal funding as we speak. Do you think this is a good thing?

I don't think this is correct. The majority of people prefers states to have more influence on school curriculum and federal government to have less. Yes, there are downsides to that, but it generally means that hours on STEM will increase and hours on ideology will decrease. Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not b…

Banning books and forcing bibles in schools. Right.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#560

Post by bix6 »

cryptonector wrote: post #555
bix6 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the government should just not say anything? Let’s just get all our news from X, the famously truthful platform!

The government is allowed and required to say things about the current state of the law (i.e., they must publish the law, and they may educate the public about it, and they must enforce it). The government is not required and perhaps should not be allowed to say anything promoting specific political opinions or promoting specific Acts that have not passed yet. By "say" you [I think, and therefore] I mean as in publis…

And the current government is so impartial with their news reporting that only right wing outlets get added to the press pool which becomes the de facto voice of the government since anybody else gets sued or defunded
Post reply on HN