4 ms·

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to avoid providing a open forum where the users can speak to one another, service providers and managing parties. Instead they are not bound to provide anything above and beyond their initial services. I dont think it is necessarilly wrong from them to do mass censorship nor think its right for them to suffer through caustic commentary. But the solution they are setting as a president is one of "Fuck you, gov still pays me". They do not need to adhear to the peoples wants so long as they can fet funding Edit: I should clarify 'partially funded' but I will keep this comment as is because I believe it has stirred up the emotions which is why this move is controversail.

notadoc 10y ago
NPR gets about 90% of its funding from members, grants, foundations, etc. If you have ever listened to NPR, you know how frequently they solicit donations during funding drives. Only about 5% of individual NPR station funding comes from federal resources, and around 10% of CPB funding. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_abo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dublinben 10y ago
Were NPR engaging in "mass censorship" before they introduced online comments in 2008? They are just returning to the status quo of the rest of their 38 year history. You are still free to comment on their stories in alternative venues, exactly as you are doing here.
- formula1 10y ago
  "They do not need to provide anything above and beyond". I find it fascinating how polarizing this thread will be. Ill have you know I love many of their shows but I should respect people to only respond to what triggers them
Karunamon 10y ago
Partially funded by gov according to their own stats[1]. 11% from the corporation for public broadcasting, and another 5% from local governments. And on a side note, the trend away from open forums in the name of "civility" bothers me on a pretty deep level, but I don't see the connection between that and 16% of their funds. http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
linkregister 10y ago
In 2012 federal funding accounted for 10.9% of revenue for Public Radio. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding Alternate sources: 1. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_abo... It contains some handy pie charts for both Public Radio stations and NPR. [2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/13/taxpayers-provide-percent-nprs-funding-analyst-says.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/13/taxpayers-provide... An analyst claims that 25% of NPR's funding is from taxpayer sources. This claim is disputed by NPR's public relations spokesperson.
thaw13579 10y ago
NPR's mission statement doesn't include "a open forum where the users can speak to one another" though, and removing the comment section doesn't constitute censorship. The web and many social media services are available for people to publicly and freely speak their mind, unlike some other governments, where censorship does in fact exist. Ultimately, I think moves like this are good for promoting a more decentralized version of the web where people host and manage their own content, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/technology/the-webs-creator-looks-to-reinvent-it.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/technology/the-webs-creato...
- formula1 10y ago
  "Above and beyond" are the key words here. If this was a 100% private sector I would be fine with it because its about the companies choice. But the fact it is associated to the gov opens up many questions. - how do gov programs want to accept feedback? - does the government want open forums and discusion places? - how much anonymity does the gov want to provide in such discussions? - what types of contracts forve a company by law to abide by government principles of discussion? We have laws of what you cant do. We also have laws such as "you can not deny a person water" in arizona [0]. Is the internet to be placed under similar laws or can I run a non-profit with my own agenda in mind with no interest in handling feedback from the taxpayers funding it? [0] http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/asked-answered/2014/09/17/asked-answered-free-water/15740067/ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/asked-answered/201...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    What other government resources should have comment sections? Should IRS.GOV?
    - formula1 10y ago
      Thats an interesting point actually. Their customer oriented subdomain doesnt accept comments in either. Also is pretty inactive. Perhaps this has been a long time coming and is only now happening to the bigger names http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/about/nta-blog http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/about/nta-blog https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVcm9Phi1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVcm9Phi1c Edit : Fbi alo doesnt accept comments https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/alaska-man-wanted-federal-agents-killed-in-murder-for-hire-case https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/alaska-man-wanted-federal-a...

notadoc 10y ago

NPR gets about 90% of its funding from members, grants, foundations, etc. If you have ever listened to NPR, you know how frequently they solicit donations during funding drives. Only about 5% of individual NPR station funding comes from federal resources, and around 10% of CPB funding. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_abo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dublinben 10y ago

Were NPR engaging in "mass censorship" before they introduced online comments in 2008? They are just returning to the status quo of the rest of their 38 year history. You are still free to comment on their stories in alternative venues, exactly as you are doing here.

formula1 10y ago
"They do not need to provide anything above and beyond". I find it fascinating how polarizing this thread will be. Ill have you know I love many of their shows but I should respect people to only respond to what triggers them

Karunamon 10y ago

Partially funded by gov according to their own stats[1]. 11% from the corporation for public broadcasting, and another 5% from local governments. And on a side note, the trend away from open forums in the name of "civility" bothers me on a pretty deep level, but I don't see the connection between that and 16% of their funds. http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

linkregister 10y ago

In 2012 federal funding accounted for 10.9% of revenue for Public Radio. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding Alternate sources: 1. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_abo... It contains some handy pie charts for both Public Radio stations and NPR. [2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/13/taxpayers-provide-percent-nprs-funding-analyst-says.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/13/taxpayers-provide... An analyst claims that 25% of NPR's funding is from taxpayer sources. This claim is disputed by NPR's public relations spokesperson.

thaw13579 10y ago

NPR's mission statement doesn't include "a open forum where the users can speak to one another" though, and removing the comment section doesn't constitute censorship. The web and many social media services are available for people to publicly and freely speak their mind, unlike some other governments, where censorship does in fact exist. Ultimately, I think moves like this are good for promoting a more decentralized version of the web where people host and manage their own content, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/technology/the-webs-creator-looks-to-reinvent-it.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/technology/the-webs-creato...

formula1 10y ago
"Above and beyond" are the key words here. If this was a 100% private sector I would be fine with it because its about the companies choice. But the fact it is associated to the gov opens up many questions. - how do gov programs want to accept feedback? - does the government want open forums and discusion places? - how much anonymity does the gov want to provide in such discussions? - what types of contracts forve a company by law to abide by government principles of discussion? We have laws of what you cant do. We also have laws such as "you can not deny a person water" in arizona [0]. Is the internet to be placed under similar laws or can I run a non-profit with my own agenda in mind with no interest in handling feedback from the taxpayers funding it? [0] http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/asked-answered/2014/09/17/asked-answered-free-water/15740067/ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/asked-answered/201...
- tptacek 10y ago
  What other government resources should have comment sections? Should IRS.GOV?
  - formula1 10y ago
    Thats an interesting point actually. Their customer oriented subdomain doesnt accept comments in either. Also is pretty inactive. Perhaps this has been a long time coming and is only now happening to the bigger names http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/about/nta-blog http://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/about/nta-blog https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVcm9Phi1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVcm9Phi1c Edit : Fbi alo doesnt accept comments https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/alaska-man-wanted-federal-agents-killed-in-murder-for-hire-case https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/alaska-man-wanted-federal-a...