They STILL have it....Rocking show last night and they sounded great. Hard to pick a favorite, Let it bleed, midnight rambler, Honky Tonk Woman, Gimme shelter, sympathy for the Devil, Bitch...so many good tunes. Amazing for the age they are. I hope to catch them again sometime.

There is no such thing as unbiased media.

I love NPR and PBS. In the menu of information sources available IMO it is essential that they remain. The fact that MAGAdites and many GOPers want to quell NPR and PBS, IMO, says practically everything to know about where they are coming from and where they want us, all of us, to go.

Can you imagine that the State media, source of info, is narrowed to Fox?

It would be a great shame and loss if the MAGAdites had their way and defund PBS and NPR. It's been on their agenda for years and they continually, relentlessly harp about it. Project 2025 specifically plans to defund.

The purpose of MAGAdites' wanting to eliminate NPR and PBS is to quell or thwart truth, or opposition to their spew, and clear the path of means to end.

It's a fascist move in the playbook. It's that simple.

I don’t want them to go away… but I don’t find enough value in them and their biases to want my tax money supporting them.

Value??? Let me explain.

Suppose they aren't bias, as much as can be achieved.

Can you imagine an entity committed to Truth? (definition: that which is true, in accordance with fact or reality)

Such a thing actually exists.

We have NPR and PBS, taxpayer funded. And there's Truth Social, Fox News, Newsmax, with their versions of Truth and they are obviously committed to their alt-realities. I hope and trust that NPR and PBS are equally committed to facts and reality.

In today's and future reality, I can't imagine PBS and NPR, etc. being silenced by the alt-reality.

In reality we have a choice. We can spend a little taxpayer money in support of orgs committed to Truth, as defined above, or a lot of taxpayer money in support of alt-reality, in the form of Trumpism, for generations.

While I do believe sources like NPR and PBS are biased, I don't believe they usually lie blatantly. They lie by omission, they lie by innuendo. Nonetheless, they are generally reliable. Just don't expect them to offer anything contrary to their preferred narrative. It would certainly be nice to have news sources which provided only the unadorned, provable facts, but that's not likely to ever happen. Bill

Yes, value.

As in let the folks who listen to NPR or PBS pay for it.

They have advertising, albeit different than the rest of commercial broadcasting.

While I can control what I listen to (and I do sometimes listen to both NPR and PBS) I cannot control who my taxes go to.

You admitted they are biased. "There is no such thing as unbiased media."

You are in effect demanding that I support financially your political biases.

Note I do not want the federal government paying for Fox, either. I don't want everything going to MSNBC as well.

Your explanation is "I like it, think its the best source, but I don't pay the bills for them, so you have to."

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Value??? Let me explain.

Suppose they aren't bias, as much as can be achieved.

Can you imagine an entity committed to Truth? (definition: that which is true, in accordance with fact or reality)

Such a thing actually exists.

We have NPR and PBS, taxpayer funded. And there's Truth Social, Fox News, Newsmax, with their versions of Truth and they are obviously committed to their alt-realities. I hope and trust that NPR and PBS are equally committed to facts and reality.

In today's and future reality, I can't imagine PBS and NPR, etc. being silenced by the alt-reality.

In reality we have a choice. We can spend a little taxpayer money in support of orgs committed to Truth, as defined above, or a lot of taxpayer money in support of alt-reality, in the form of Trumpism, for generations.

quote:

Your explanation is "I like it, think its the best source, but I don't pay the bills for them, so you have to."

I didn't say that I think it's the best source, but I do think it's a great source.

I think they have very high ethical standards.

Also, I think it's not true that they lie by omission, innuendo, etc. That's what Fox does, with a few actual lies mixed in, anything to sustain the narrative.

Also I said that I think there is no such thing as unbiased sources. There are others who agree. Jeffee posted a link recently which rates bias, which is a good source, and they agree.

I also agree that nowadays we have no news source who gives just the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts - to let us decide what to make of it, sort it out. That ain't happened for a long time, if ever, and not in the future either.

First of all, it wouldn't be very popular with listeners or readers, despite that line of thought being repeated by right-leaners often, under the pretense of being capable of objectivity, or don't tell me what to think. Also it wouldn't be popular with advertisers either. So, frankly the idea is a dud.

I pay for subscriptions with NYT and WaPo, maybe others - can't remember now. Several others have paywalls, which I bypass when an article is on the MSNBC feed. Several others have a blocker requiring that I disable ad-blocker before allowing access. That's annoying.

PBS and NPR have no paywalls or disable adblocker requirements.

IMO, the big problem with "news" or info sources is the ownership, and the gluttony for advertisement money which trumps journalistic ethics. Plus, it appears that Murdoch and the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Koch, etc. have far-right propaganda fetish. I don't know how others such as the Atlantic, Newsweek, NYT keep a clean slate ethically.

One thing is that none of them can be trusted as much as NPR and PBS can be trusted, except maybe Newsweek and WaPo and NYT.

Recently there has been a stirr at WaPo which helps to make my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...#The_Washington_Post

William Lewis (journalist)

On 5 November 2023 Lewis was named chief executive officer and publisher of The Washington Post, replacing Fred Ryan.[5] Lewis began the job on January 2, 2024.[5]

(Another good source, IMO, is Wikipedia. I don't give a rat's ass about the criticism, which I think is BS. They are as close to just the facts Mame as it gets. Practically all of it is footnoted and can be corroborated or verified elsewhere.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...39fb3b9b838eae&ei=79

All The Washington Post Has Is Its Credibility
Opinion by Stephanie McCrummen • 5h • 4 min read

https://news.yahoo.com/news/je...-wapo-174054308.html

Yachting Jeff Bezos Throws WaPo CEO Will Lewis a Lifeline (For Now)
Corbin Bolies
Tue, June 18, 2024 at 1:40 PM EDT·4 min read

https://www.bing.com/search?q=...531&lightschemeovr=1

Do you really want to throw NPR and PBS in the same boat as MSM for profit?

Which has the higher value - news based in ethics or news based in profit motive?

Taxpayer money can buy the air time for NPR and PBS, but it can't buy their ethical journalism.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c8835dbcea39a6&ei=26

The Atlantic

Readers Don’t Trust Dirty Tricks
Opinion by Anne Applebaum • 5h • 7 min read