United States | News & Politics

3133 readers

1376 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

Senate approves cuts to NPR, PBS and foreign aid programs (www.npr.org)

submitted 14 hours ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/usa@midwest.social

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I mean..... At least with NPR, I don't really even see the point of the GOP targeting them anymore. Since his first term they barely even attempt to offer any kind of rebuttal to the insane lobbyist and GOP strategist they invite on constantly.

They used to challenge them, or at least have a liberal lobbyist or politician speak afterwards as a weak counterbalance. Now the best you get after having a Republican spout off the benefits of killing the poor for 10 min straight is a mild tone of disagreement as they say "that's all the time we have, thanks for joining us".

Maybe losing their funding will finally get it through the heads of journalists in America that placating fascist doesn't work?

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 4 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Now the best you get after having a Republican spout off the benefits of killing the poor for 10 min straight is a mild tone of disagreement as they say "that's all the time we have, thanks for joining us".

Just a hypothesis, but considering NPR's general audience, maybe they don't necessarily need to offer much rebuttal. Maybe, via the interview Q's, it's more a case of attempting to give the right-wingers as much rope as they need to... you know?

(then again, I haven't listened to NPR for ages; so shame on me)

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Just a hypothesis, but considering NPR's general audience, maybe they don't necessarily need to offer much rebuttal.

I mean, I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of journalism is? I think just allowing people to tell boldface lies to the general public without retort is falling short of the mark.

Maybe, via the interview Q's, it's more a case of attempting to give the right-wingers as much rope as they need to... you know?

I don't really know why anyone would assume anyone else is going to hold them accountable if journalist won't?

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

My point is that context is everything. For example, if you already know that most of your audience is already highly skeptical of right-wing views and talking points, then: 1) it might just behoove the program to feature the more extremist interviewees, and 2) it might actually be a waste of time, energy and resources to rebut what the audience likely already considers obvious rubbish. That's over-generalising of course, but still...

Also, NPR doesn't necessarily represent the totality of pure, journalistic purpose, and they're not there to live up to any specific outside standards. It's fine for you to critique them, but to my mind, if they're accomplishing their mission then that's the most important thing.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

it might just behoove the program to feature the more extremist interviewees, and 2) it might actually be a waste of time, energy and resources to rebut what the audience likely already considers obvious rubbish.

That might be fine for a talk show, but the point of journalism is to expose lies with the actual truth. If someone lies they should strip down how they lied, why they lied, and why it's important to keep them accountable.

NPR doesn't necessarily represent the totality of pure, journalistic purpose, and they're not there to live up to any specific outside standards.

Anyone claiming to be a journalist should be held to the basic journalistic ethics and standards they were taught in school.

accomplishing their mission then that's the most important thing.

Selling tote bags?

[–] salty_chief@lemmy.world -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

NPR is left leaning information. They pose news in a way to slight one side politically. That shouldn’t happen but it happens with national media as well. That should have been readily apparent after 2024 election. The misinformation was wide spread across news networks.

I listen NPR since Obama was in office and thought then they were middle of road. Then they slowly slid to left leaning news organization.

I just want news report. I don’t need the slandered headline or tone of a report to reflect for one side or the other. Just give me the damn news.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 3 points 11 hours ago

NPR is left leaning information. They pose news in a way to slight one side politically. That shouldn’t happen but it happens with national media as well.

I would consider them center-right, it's not like they are advocating for citizens to seize the means of production nor anything..... It's just that the overton's window in American politics is so far right, that standing up to fascist get you called a Marxist.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 7 points 13 hours ago

Start practicing your line, it's gonna be a bumpy road...

"Welcome to Costco, I love you .."