NPR and PBS dug their own grave Taxpayers tired of the bias

I actually enjoy NPR. Their news, according to researchers, is accurate but slightly left leaning bias. This is fine for me. The right attacks the left for being bias or "fake news", yet the right is just as biased. I tend to enjoy programs that are fairly center but lean a bit left and a bit right. NPR for me, is actually more than just news. I listen to NPR a lot. I enjoy their local content and programs as well. One of my favorite programs is on Saturday, called "A Way with Words", where callers call in with questions about words, phrases or slang and the hosts discuss the origin and meaning behind the words. I also enjoy a lot of their feature pieces that delve deep into various stories. My favorite for a long time was Car Talk, and I still listen to old episodes of this series. I would find it a great travesty if federal funding was pulled from NPR.

What happens to classical and jazz programming if NPR is shut off? You can probably get jazz programming in big cities, but classical can be really difficult because the movements are long enough to prevent commercials from being aired. Maybe the answer is services like "Spotify"?

Regarding their news bias, suffice it to say that I differ with David; what I hear is relentlessly on the port side of the spectrum, and I'd argue distinctly to the left of the NY Times and Washington Post. Like it or not, tax funding for NPR/PBS does amount to a huge subsidy to the Democratic Party.

But that aside, the key argument for NPR/PBS is not news coverage, but rather the question of whether it actually does something that the private sector does not. At this point, you can get, apart from some isolated mountain areas, cell phone and/or internet coverage pretty much anywhere, and in those same areas, NPR doesn't penetrate well because FM is line of sight propagation--it doesn't do well in those same mountain valleys, either.

It's also worth noting that around here, NPR is moving from its traditional role in classical and jazz programming into things like classic rock, and what it does there is to seriously undercut the business case for private stations doing the same thing.

Long and short of it is that even apart from its bias in the news, a serious appraisal of what NPR and PBS actually do is in order, and I'd argue that a huge portion of the stations can be cut without any real consequence.

I find them highly biased left. Incredibly so. No doubt I am right of you, dave. (Way right.)

Examples:

• Watch a video of the PBS election night coverage. It is clear that from their perspective "our side" is losing. These are actually pretty funny. They are so optimistic at 5:00pm and by midnight, not so much.
• How they handled the Hunter Laptop story (and per whistleblowers, why).
• Underlying assumption that government should solve problems (this isn't an example--you'll have to listen for it. And example would be: conservative says the government shouldn't be providing health care. Reporter responds: "Well, what would you do to solve the problem of people not having health care, then?")

Shows like Car-Talk can stand on their own with ads. At this point, we're funding a bunch of lies.

I’ve have heard for years from them that CPB and NPR don’t get a significant portion of their funding from the government/public, so I don’t see the problem with dropping the public funding.

Without that (supposedly small amount of) funding, they can keep “journalistic integrity,” and produce any amount of slanted or non-slanted content they like, and we don’t have to be taxed for content that contains a large amount of propaganda. Everyone wins.

Regarding their claim that their funding is not mostly from the feds, keep in mind that first of all, you've got the reality that the states also fund NPR/PBS, and then you finally have the fact that government agencies often sponsor programs, as do nonprofits which are ultimately funded by the government. Account for all of that, and I think that the overall percentage of funding that ultimately comes from government is far greater than what they're admitting, and their implicit fear that the Trump administration will start cracking down on "sponsorships" and such as well.

It's one thing to ask IF they are biased. (Both PBS and MSM). But why are they so biased?

Why do people go into journalism? Indeed.com lists reasons to be a journalist. #8 is, "You get to make a difference in people's lives-- Being a journalist puts you in a position to shape people's perceptions. Whether reporting facts or presenting opinions, journalists aim to educate the public about important matters. By helping others stay informed, you can lead them to make better decisions both socially and politically."

I think that listing it as #8 doesn't reflect how important this is to people choosing journalism. Similar to the old adage, "If you can't do, teach." If you're too dumb to actually make like better for yourself and those around you, you still want life to be better. So you start hoping government can do it.

According to the Media Bias Report (https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive)

The news is slightly left leaning. With that said they have podcasts and such that lean in different directions. I don't want it to lean right, I want it to live in the central. Most of the conservative shows, lean significantly right. I have nothing against right, I just don't see this massive left leaning.

NPR is a bit complicated. You have national NPR which creates national radio shows, whether it is news or other types of programming. These shows that it creates, can come from the national company, or it may be purchased from a local station and then aired national (think A prarie home companion which was aired by Minnesota Public Radio). Then you have state level Public Radio, which can also create its own programming, and then it goes to a local level which also creates local programming, but often times will license from the state level and the national level public radio. So when you listen to you local public radio station, you are getting local programming, state programming and national programming all dictated by the local public radio's desire.

Can you get some of this stuff other places? Yes and No. When you listen to the radio you are only listening to the local public radio station. Given the amount of money they have they may run more loops than original or licensed programming. Many local public radio stations have multiple HD bands, where their main band plays more programming and subsequent HD bands may just be playing classical music looping or jazz music looping. Obviously the music you can get elsewhere. And sometimes you can get parts of the news elsewhere. What you typically won't get is local programming. For example, during election season, most local public radio stations will have extensive interviews and/or debates with local candidates. This is sometimes the only venue where some people may get exposure to a local candidate running for Mayor, Sherriff... Some of the programming is unique and is not obtained elsewhere. And some of the national programs and shows would not make it without national exposure. The news on NPR is a small slice of what they offer.

In my house, my wife is always cold. So she's over there with two blankets and a heating pad underneath and I'm under a sheet. And she still says it's cold.

------

Those ad fontes media people have 60 Minutes about the same as NPR for Left-Right. Sorry, but 60 Minutes is FAR left of "unbiased." Nothing but soft-ball questions for Kamala last year. Of course, the most egregious was when her answer to a question was unintelligible word salad, they changed her answer by dubbing in her answer to a different question. That's deceit. And clearly motivated by their desire for her to do well.

>>Those ad fontes media people have 60 Minutes about the same as NPR for Left-Right. Sorry, but 60 Minutes is FAR left of “unbiased.”<<

Yeah, when they had People magazine higher on the vertical “News value and reliability” scale than Newsweek, Wired, The Atlantic, Fox, The Boston Herald, etc. (i.e. both left and right), it’s clear this chart can be easily discounted as mostly worthless.

It would be interesting to do a chronological one.

Based on content, where would 10 episodes of The MacNeil/Lehrer Report from 1985 fit in that chart?

Or same with Firing Line with William F Buckley?

Or all the public speeches of John F Kennedy? Would ANY Democrat say, "Ask not what your country can do for you"?

Or Ronald Reagan?

I find the Left-shift of our country amazing. Michelle Obama was talking the other day about how Trump's deportations were so upsetting they were keeping her up at night. Clinton and Obama deported millions. Did that keep her up?

Regarding the claim that one can hardly get programming in smaller markets, I vividly remember one evening while hunting about an hour west of Steamboat Springs (Sunbeam metropolitan area), and we caught a local country & western station from Rawlins, Wyoming--not PBS or NPR. More or less, even in some pretty small towns, the local implement and equipment company will work with the schools and such to support such a station--at least if the market isn't pushed out by PBS and the like.

(funniest thing about that station was a PSA imploring coal miners not to smoke on the job due to the hazards of methane and coal dust)

So count me very skeptical that PBS/NPR really adds much to the equation here. I've worked on small FM transmitters--100W units produced by HCJB--and if you can afford a small antenna, transmitter, and about 300 square feet of building for a studio, you are up and going. Friends of mine who have worked in the business moreover comment on how palatial the PBS/NPR buildings are compared to private stations as well.

Best question I've heard yet regards why we're subsidizing content with an audience overwhelmingly comprised of affluent white people.