Twitter pisses off NPR
-
More trolling from the world’s premier troll. “State owned media” is generally a propaganda mouthpiece of the state, think Xinhua, Global Times, RT. NPR bears no resemblance to that, obviously.
@jon-nyc said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
More trolling from the world’s premier troll. “State owned media” is generally a propaganda mouthpiece of the state, think Xinhua, Global Times, RT. NPR bears no resemblance to that, obviously.
Could of fooled me. NPR is funded by contributions and government funds. It tilts so far left, if it ain't propaganda, it's dating it's sister.
Because of the government funds, it really should be as political free as possible in its news programs and as balanced as possible in its commentary.
-
@jon-nyc said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
More trolling from the world’s premier troll. “State owned media” is generally a propaganda mouthpiece of the state, think Xinhua, Global Times, RT. NPR bears no resemblance to that, obviously.
Could of fooled me. NPR is funded by contributions and government funds. It tilts so far left, if it ain't propaganda, it's dating it's sister.
Because of the government funds, it really should be as political free as possible in its news programs and as balanced as possible in its commentary.
-
@jon-nyc said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
Did it seem state affiliated in 2017?
Do you count the bureaucrats that are at the heart and soul of each of the branches of government a part of the state?
The Brad
-
@Copper said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
npr is a member of the democrat party.
And not because of the twitter designation.
They also want you to eat bugs.
-
NPR is not state owned media.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/182676957/npr-board-of-directorsNPR may at times report news but NPR is not all news.
-
NPR is not state owned media.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/182676957/npr-board-of-directorsNPR may at times report news but NPR is not all news.
@Axtremus said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
NPR may at times report news but NPR is not all news.
That's true. Once in a blue moon they distribute something credible.
-
NPR gets some money from the government, though it's murky how much from the federal government, and how much from local governments. I have little doubt that its reporting is at least colored by that fact After all, would you want to say something bad if it risked losing as little as 5% of your revenue stream?
Of course not.
That said, to hold themselves out to be "objective" is silly.
Go to NPR's search page and search "Far Right."
You'll find 17 stories with that phrase from this year.
Now search "Far Left."
You'll find 6 stories in the last 3 ½ years (and nothing from 2023). And the only story about the Floyd protests (which no one will say are NOT far left), says that "Trump blames far-left extremists."
So, yeah, give up the mantle of objectivity, and join MSNBC in the way you cover news. At least you'll be honest.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
NPR's bias has probably got nothing to do with where they get their money. It's just who they are. Even as a namby-pamby liberal, I find I can't listen to them any more because the bias is so deeply ingrained in their discussions.
-
@jon-nyc said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
Did it seem state affiliated in 2017?
Do you count the bureaucrats that are at the heart and soul of each of the branches of government a part of the state?
@LuFins-Dad said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
@jon-nyc said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
Did it seem state affiliated in 2017?
Do you count the bureaucrats that are at the heart and soul of each of the branches of government a part of the state?
Seems to me there's a lot of daylight between an outlet whose reporting is appreciated by many individuals within the state and, say, the CCP's Global Times.
-
NPR gets some money from the government, though it's murky how much from the federal government, and how much from local governments. I have little doubt that its reporting is at least colored by that fact After all, would you want to say something bad if it risked losing as little as 5% of your revenue stream?
Of course not.
That said, to hold themselves out to be "objective" is silly.
Go to NPR's search page and search "Far Right."
You'll find 17 stories with that phrase from this year.
Now search "Far Left."
You'll find 6 stories in the last 3 ½ years (and nothing from 2023). And the only story about the Floyd protests (which no one will say are NOT far left), says that "Trump blames far-left extremists."
So, yeah, give up the mantle of objectivity, and join MSNBC in the way you cover news. At least you'll be honest.
@George-K said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
That said, to hold themselves out to be "objective" is silly.
Go to NPR's search page and search "Far Right."
You'll find 17 stories with that phrase from this year.
Now search "Far Left."
You'll find 6 stories in the last 3 ½ years (and nothing from 2023). And the only story about the Floyd protests (which no one will say are NOT far left), says that "Trump blames far-left extremists."
Is the number of articles the right measure for objectivity? It could be that the "far right" has done more newsworthy things many more frequently than the "far left." Take, for example, reporting on Hitler: just because a news outfit has printed something bad about Hitler 99.9% of the time they reported on Hitler does not mean it is "not objective," but rather than Hitler was bad.
-
@George-K said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
That said, to hold themselves out to be "objective" is silly.
Go to NPR's search page and search "Far Right."
You'll find 17 stories with that phrase from this year.
Now search "Far Left."
You'll find 6 stories in the last 3 ½ years (and nothing from 2023). And the only story about the Floyd protests (which no one will say are NOT far left), says that "Trump blames far-left extremists."
Is the number of articles the right measure for objectivity? It could be that the "far right" has done more newsworthy things many more frequently than the "far left." Take, for example, reporting on Hitler: just because a news outfit has printed something bad about Hitler 99.9% of the time they reported on Hitler does not mean it is "not objective," but rather than Hitler was bad.
@Axtremus said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
@George-K said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
That said, to hold themselves out to be "objective" is silly.
Go to NPR's search page and search "Far Right."
You'll find 17 stories with that phrase from this year.
Now search "Far Left."
You'll find 6 stories in the last 3 ½ years (and nothing from 2023). And the only story about the Floyd protests (which no one will say are NOT far left), says that "Trump blames far-left extremists."
Is the number of articles the right measure for objectivity? It could be that the "far right" has done more newsworthy things many more frequently than the "far left." Take, for example, reporting on Hitler: just because a news outfit has printed something bad about Hitler 99.9% of the time they reported on Hitler does not mean it is "not objective," but rather than Hitler was bad.
Some reflection about whether the Floyd riots could have been framed as "far left", but were not, might be illuminating.
-
"Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1 percent of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly,” according to influencewatch.org, which rates NPR as a left-of-center outlet.
According to Pew Research, the audiences of NPR and PBS are among the most liberal in America. Seventy-two percent of NPR’s audience describe themselves as “consistently liberal,” while 71 percent of PBS’s audience describe themselves that way. PBS also receives federal funding.
-
"Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1 percent of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly,” according to influencewatch.org, which rates NPR as a left-of-center outlet.
According to Pew Research, the audiences of NPR and PBS are among the most liberal in America. Seventy-two percent of NPR’s audience describe themselves as “consistently liberal,” while 71 percent of PBS’s audience describe themselves that way. PBS also receives federal funding.
@Jolly said in Twitter pisses off NPR:
Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1 percent of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly,” according to influencewatch.org, which rates NPR as a left-of-center outlet.
Although NPR receives only 1% of its direct funding from the federal government,[5] member stations (which pay dues amounting to approximately one third of NPR's revenue), tend to receive far larger portions of their budgets from the federal (through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and state governments. NPR states it is not state-run media, and further states it operates independently of the U.S. government;nonetheless, NPR indicates that federal funding is essential to NPR and that the loss of federal funding would weaken the network.
CPB:
The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds. CPB has claimed that 95% of its appropriation goes directly to content development, community services, and other local station and system needs.[4]
For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million, including $500,000 in interest earned. The distribution of these funds was as follows:[8]
$222.78M for direct grants to local public television stations;
$74.63M for television programming grants;
$69.31M for direct grants to local public radio stations;
$26.67M for PBS support;
$22.84M for grants for radio programming and national program production and acquisition;
$22.25M for CPB administrative costs;
$7.00M for the Radio Program Fund. -
I used to listen to NPR when I had to drive to work. Honestly, I enjoyed it overall. It was a refreshing way to learn about news and some deep-dives into topics. It wasn't overwhelmingly liberal and in general they'd give the "5 Ws" of a story (who, what, where, when, why) with maybe a bit more on the WHY end, which was good. Anyway, doesn't matter now... I work at home and look at snow melting all day (and birds, too). It helps to be unplugged a bit from news, in general, I have found. Humans were not meant to consume world-wide news non-stop, IMO. I've gone so far as to say I don't really have a need to know about 99% of the news. School shooting? Molestation scandal? Chicago crime? None of it affects me. Ok, weird rant over.
