Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order • Hacker News Board

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#561

Post by jaybrendansmith » Sat, May 03, 2025, 12:24 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #72

hadrien01 wrote: post #2

I suppose this is in response to this executive order: ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... I would add that PBS has this to say about public media funding: > The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that…

PBS would say that. Back here in reality the BBC is trusted by only about 40-44% of the British population, and actively distrusted by around a quarter. The true number who trust it is probably lower, as those polls suffer volunteering bias and other problems that push responses to the left when there's no ground truth to weight to. There's a profound moral problem with forcing people to pay money for media they acti…

Good lord. So now there's no objective truth, yes? Just which media is trusted by whom? So the government no longer has the remit to report, and to insure reportage of objective truth? My point is that while BBC may only be trusted by 45% of the population, that doesn't matter: They are doing their best to report objectively. So is PBS and NPR. You can make whatever accusations you want about trust, or bias, but can you point to a news article where PBS or NPR was objectively false? I can turn on Fox news and instantly hear lies at any moment, or at best, failure to report facts. Did you know that Fox didn't even report the stock market drop after liberation day? They just pretended it wasn't happening! Welcome to 1984. Orwell was a few decades off.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#562

Post by DudeOpotomus » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #523

DudeOpotomus wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are they fighting a civil war for? Cheaper gas? More fast food? There is nothing now or in the near future that would fracture the country enough to fight. Once commerce stops, people will lose their collective minds. You cant tell Americans how to park, how to dress let alone what to eat or drink or do. Good luck with the collective will needed to fight for an ideologue in the 21st century.

> Good luck with the collective will needed to fight for an ideologue in the 21st century. Look at the January 6 mob... I can imagine there's the willingness to fight for democracy or the return of the rule of law, or just "to see those corrupt scumbags be punished", people had food in 2020 but still went to the streets because of the police murder of George Floyd.

There were only a few thousand people at 1/6. There are 40mm people in CA, just as an example. 300mm Americans are not going to bow down to a man who wants to be king.

People who think we'll end up in an armed conflict with some authoritarian enemy, watch too many movies and game too much. If there is a war, it will be financial and electronic. Americans call 911 when their internet goes down, they are not going to be led into a war against their fellow Americans let alone the world because of something like DEI or Juan the illegal. Instead, they'll rise up and take these billionaires and the politicians down.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#563

Post by dotandgtfo » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:47 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #559

dotandgtfo wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't enjoy making others pay for my entertainment. What a petty way to frame the discussion. You'll find broad/majority support for state broadcasters in Northern Europe. The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clickbait/ragebait. Doubly so in small countries with just a few million citizens. Free, broadly available, non-commercial journalism…

I already showed that the UK - definitely a country in Northern Europe - doesn't have a majority that finds its state broadcaster trustworthy. We can assume those people who don't find it trustworthy don't support it, or if they do, do so only out of inertia and wouldn't care if it went away either. > The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clic…

> You are welcome to define all news you dislike as ragebait but that's clearly not an argument, it's just a "lame value judgement".

> Meanwhile the injustice upon innocent people remains, and the existence of it harms society itself greatly via other paths as well.

Your hyperbole is exasperating. I'll pass.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#564

Post by mike_hearn » Sat, May 03, 2025, 4:46 PM UTC

dotandgtfo wrote: post #563

mike_hearn wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already showed that the UK - definitely a country in Northern Europe - doesn't have a majority that finds its state broadcaster trustworthy. We can assume those people who don't find it trustworthy don't support it, or if they do, do so only out of inertia and wouldn't care if it went away either. > The business model of for-profit digital news production is not economically viable outside of certain niches or clic…

> You are welcome to define all news you dislike as ragebait but that's clearly not an argument, it's just a "lame value judgement". > Meanwhile the injustice upon innocent people remains, and the existence of it harms society itself greatly via other paths as well. Your hyperbole is exasperating. I'll pass.

It's not more hyperbolic than many other claims about morality in politics.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#565

Post by locallost » Sat, May 03, 2025, 5:52 PM UTC

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…

The obvious take away is that the left needs an actual Fox News. A friend of mine actually pitched this idea a few years ago, but I was of the opinion that the left is above that and nobody would read/watch/follow it. Now I'm not so sure anymore, I think people are ready for it just for the kicks and it would actually have a big effect on balancing things out.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#566

Post by ujkhsjkdhf234 » Sat, May 03, 2025, 5:58 PM UTC

Nifty3929 wrote: post #537

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #90

If he actually cared about unbiased media, he would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which he won't do because that would kill Fox, Newsmax, and the rest of the Republican propaganda outlets.

I think the problem with that is: who defines "fair" Is it fair to criticize Trump? What if that criticism is based on "alternate facts" according to Trump?

You don't need to define fair because that is not what the Fairness Doctrine is about. The Fairness Doctrine says on some topics, you must give or allow someone else to give the opposing view as well.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#567

Post by tremon » Sat, May 03, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #131

MurkyLabs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it crazy that the supposed 'biased media' directly targets PBS who I know from watching children's shows as well as NOVA (it's been going for 51 seasons). These shows don't scream biased to me, they scream educational.

To these people educational is a synonym for biased. They depend on uneducated people and they have a chip on their shoulder from being between somewhat and extremely dumb themselves.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking they're equally stupid as their voters. Many of them know exactly what they are doing and why.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#568

Post by mike_hearn » Sat, May 03, 2025, 6:55 PM UTC

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #561

mike_hearn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PBS would say that. Back here in reality the BBC is trusted by only about 40-44% of the British population, and actively distrusted by around a quarter. The true number who trust it is probably lower, as those polls suffer volunteering bias and other problems that push responses to the left when there's no ground truth to weight to. There's a profound moral problem with forcing people to pay money for media they acti…

Good lord. So now there's no objective truth, yes? Just which media is trusted by whom? So the government no longer has the remit to report, and to insure reportage of objective truth? My point is that while BBC may only be trusted by 45% of the population, that doesn't matter: They are doing their best to report objectively. So is PBS and NPR. You can make whatever accusations you want about trust, or bias, but can…

There is such a thing as objective truth. Note that NPR's former head doesn't believe that [1]. Anyway, most people in Britain disagree that the BBC does its best to report it. Here's a simple reality check: how does the BBC describe right wing politicians? Dame Andrea Jenkyns DBE is a former Tory MP, government minister and campaigner for Brexit. She has a degree in economics, spent 20 years in Parliament and she just won mayorship of Greater Lincolnshire. This is the headline the BBC went with:

"Reform UK's Andrea Jenkyns is the new mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, marking a return to politics for the former Gregg's worker and Miss UK finalist"

She's 50 but the BBC's audience hears about what she did as a teenage girl. It's not an isolated incident. Nobody serious tries to argue the BBC is neutral, fair or objective anymore. Reform is the highest polling party in Britain, it's awful to make all those voters pay money to an organization that openly hates them.

> Did you know that Fox didn't even report the stock market drop after liberation day? They just pretended it wasn't happening!

Yes they did:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370983289112 "Stock markets crashing in response to tariff announcement"

[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/04/17/npr_ceo_k...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#569

Post by ben_w » Sat, May 03, 2025, 11:42 PM UTC

Nifty3929 wrote: post #534

sva_ wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a poor example. As a German, we are forced to pay much more than that, about 220 euro annually. Only a small percentage actually goes into news and such, most are entertainment programs. I don't know anyone who is younger/my age that is in favor of it or consumes it. It is basically the boomers forcing us to subsidize their shitty crime shows. Annually they collect about 9 billion euro, no surprise the author of…

Everybody loves communism except those who've actually experienced it. My wife and I were visiting a Western European country and watching the street from our balcony. Outside there was a parade of communists rallying for an upcoming vote. Well, my wife is from an actually communist country, and wanted to warn all those people that they would not have been allowed to parade or demonstrate in the country she's from. A…

It's somewhat messier than that. While I am aquatinted with the authoritarian nightmare that was Stalin himself, and with the DDR's Stasi, and think that Marx's vision was *only* an improvement *relative to pre-New Deal era capitalism* and doesn't have much to offer to the modern world[0], there's people in ex-communist countries who yearn for a return to the "good old days" and don't see what the problem was.

(And hunger probably wouldn't be a big thing today: the communist eras most associated with that were fairly early into the process of transitioning away from agrarian and towards industrial societies. Probably would be less choice of food, but there would likely still be enough food, unless they started seeing every failure as a sign of sabotage like Pol Pot did. Which is a thing I'm worried about with Trump, because that failure mode is not limited to just communists).

[0] because the modern world treats women as equals and we have universal education (which was novel for the era Marx wrote in), and trade unions are a thing. This gets most of the benefits without the various different failure modes that come with different kinds of Communism.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#570

Post by quails8mydog » Sun, May 04, 2025, 9:08 AM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #557

quails8mydog wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't forced to pay for the BBC though. Public funding is through a TV licence rather than tax, with the licence being "required" only if you watch live TV or use the BBC streaming service. Given the other streaming services available it's very easy to watch TV without it. I've never paid. Not really sure why skewing left would improve trust ratings either, unless you're suggesting that people on the right do…

Yes, the UK is slowly backing away from enforcing the license fee (they also talk of decriminalization), partly because the immorality of it is clear to everyone and because those who don't care for it are now in the majority. Nonetheless, there's no reason not to go all the way. There should not be a TV license, let alone one enforced by criminal law. Regular subscription and video scrambling systems are enough and…

I wasn't even talking about enforcement, I neither pay nor fall afoul of the terms.

I can't find any evidence of BBC employees calling it "far left", all I find when searching for that is right wing people calling it far left for not agreeing with them enough as well as some more "scientific" analysis that seemed to show it having a right wing bias. Most news bias raters put BBC as centre or centre left (it probably is centre left by US standards).

Looking at the top 3 stories now, two don't have any obvious political slant, Australian elections and arrest of terrorism suspects, whereas the 3rd is about local elections and starts with lots of quotes from Reform UK about how well they're doing. Perfect opportunity for a far left org to insert criticism, downplay, or just not report on them, but seems like pretty straight down the middle reporting.