7 ms·

If I'm giving you a regular flow of money that keeps you well fed and housed in a nice area, you're going to at least subconsciously care about how I perceive y

If I'm giving you a regular flow of money that keeps you well fed and housed in a nice area, you're going to at least subconsciously care about how I perceive you and if I approve of the things you're doing, because I have the power to cut off that flow of money at any time. This is why many wealthy individuals and organizations donate to both political parties. The implicit threat of losing a flow of money you've become accustomed to is more powerful that the vague promise of a new flow of money that you can currently live without. Old money and power don't control things with a loud command, but with a subtle flash of facial displeasure.

jacquesm 4y ago
Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it. But from where I'm sitting - far outside of the USA - they offer some of the most balanced and clean reporting out there (and that includes the BBC).
- kube-system 4y ago
  I agree with your perception. There are many within the US that simply have a different window of what they find to be acceptable sources, topics, and opinions to entertain. The word 'balanced' implies a sort of central tendency, which can vary depending on what someone finds worthy of consideration.
- Auracle 4y ago
  They aren’t even slightly balanced anymore, especially their radio stuff. They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. I didn’t hear a single positive thing about anything the Trump administration did during his presidency, only after the last election. You can’t turn on your local station without hearing some identity politics within a few minutes - either from them or NPR itself. They often only have one “side” being interviewed for their reporting. It just so happens that Republicans want to pull their funding and Democrats don’t. That’s a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation. It’s sad because they used to be pretty good, and were probably the last bastion of somewhat balanced reporting in our country.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    So you thought they were pretty good until Trump came along and then they did a hard left? Have you considered the possibility that they didn't change at all and that their reporting was on the money? People that urgently want to believe the Hunter Biden laptop story was somehow relevant tend to be hardliner Trump supporters and I find it hard to see how if that is their perspective they could be convinced that Trump has been a disaster for US politics if they haven't come to that conclusion on their own by now. Think about it: Republicans want to pull their funding. Why would that be? Because they are reporting the facts and that is inconvenient to them? Or for some non-partisan reason that I'm currently unaware of? There is this quote by Colbert: "Reality has a left wing bias" or something to that effect. NPR reporting leans 'left' only if you are far to the right of center. For the rest of the world - me included - it is still center or center right depending on the context.
    - frumper 4y ago
      Republicans have been wanting to pull their funding for 60 years because they don't think taxpayers should be funding it.
      - 0xdeadfa65 4y ago
        They should not be receiving public funds if they are going to continue to produce ideologically inclined content. At this point, they are no different than a little neoliberal/progressive think tank. And an honest assessment of the content means that they lean heavily to the left.
    - mansion7 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        > Polls have demonstrated that if the public had known the full extent of the laptop revelations they may have voted differently. How the public reacts to news is precisely why you have to have some restraint as a news editor. Because if you don't have restraint you end up being James Comey.
- tenpies 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I fully stand behind the NPR on this. I think the Hunter Biden laptop story is and was a distraction, and that the lives of family members of politicians should be off-limits for news coverage, positive or negative until they themselves insert themselves into the political arena. Let's face it squarely: the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.
    - no_circuit 4y ago
      The lives of family members of politicians and government employees should be completely on-limits for news coverage, provided that could be newsworthy, because using one's family is one method of laundering corruption. Let's say for example you need a permit approved by the CITYNAME Department of Buildings. CITYNAME is slow to process permit applications, but it is common knowledge that using a particular expeditor consulting company actually helps to get your permit approved quickly. It would definitely be newsworthy if that consulting company was owned by a spouse, sibling, parent, cousin, etc. of someone in the building department. I personally know someone who was not able to open up a store in a city I lived because the inspector literally said something was deficient and recommended some local company nearby to "fix it" for approximately $50,000. It is a similar reason why working in an investment bank, at least in the US, you have to agree that both you and your close family members must agree to trading restrictions so as not to pose a conflict of interest with any of the bank's clients. If such a restriction was not in place, then it would be easy to just pass insider information to your spouse or brother and have them make money based on news that is about to be announced.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes, using one's family can be used to launder money. But it can also be used to smear others. And because of that some prudence is required. And since all of the facts on that particular case have come out by now - or at least, given the ones that did come out without knowing whether or not that is exhaustive - I'd say the NPR made the right call.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
discussing incentives is understandable (even though your analogy doesn't fit because the government's minor funding isn't what's keeping NPR funded) suggesting that actual impropriety or improper influence occurs as a result is a conspiracy theory, and we'd need to see actual evidence that it actually happened to avoid dismissing it out of hand
justin66 4y ago
I think if you study this and read up on, for example, the Trump administration's attempts to turn VoA into a compliant propaganda outfit via the administration's control of USAGM, you might conclude that it's actually really hard to manipulate public media in this way. It's not a perfect system but it's pretty well designed.

jacquesm 4y ago

Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it. But from where I'm sitting - far outside of the USA - they offer some of the most balanced and clean reporting out there (and that includes the BBC).

kube-system 4y ago
I agree with your perception. There are many within the US that simply have a different window of what they find to be acceptable sources, topics, and opinions to entertain. The word 'balanced' implies a sort of central tendency, which can vary depending on what someone finds worthy of consideration.
Auracle 4y ago
They aren’t even slightly balanced anymore, especially their radio stuff. They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. I didn’t hear a single positive thing about anything the Trump administration did during his presidency, only after the last election. You can’t turn on your local station without hearing some identity politics within a few minutes - either from them or NPR itself. They often only have one “side” being interviewed for their reporting. It just so happens that Republicans want to pull their funding and Democrats don’t. That’s a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation. It’s sad because they used to be pretty good, and were probably the last bastion of somewhat balanced reporting in our country.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  So you thought they were pretty good until Trump came along and then they did a hard left? Have you considered the possibility that they didn't change at all and that their reporting was on the money? People that urgently want to believe the Hunter Biden laptop story was somehow relevant tend to be hardliner Trump supporters and I find it hard to see how if that is their perspective they could be convinced that Trump has been a disaster for US politics if they haven't come to that conclusion on their own by now. Think about it: Republicans want to pull their funding. Why would that be? Because they are reporting the facts and that is inconvenient to them? Or for some non-partisan reason that I'm currently unaware of? There is this quote by Colbert: "Reality has a left wing bias" or something to that effect. NPR reporting leans 'left' only if you are far to the right of center. For the rest of the world - me included - it is still center or center right depending on the context.
  - frumper 4y ago
    Republicans have been wanting to pull their funding for 60 years because they don't think taxpayers should be funding it.
    - 0xdeadfa65 4y ago
      They should not be receiving public funds if they are going to continue to produce ideologically inclined content. At this point, they are no different than a little neoliberal/progressive think tank. And an honest assessment of the content means that they lean heavily to the left.
  - mansion7 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      > Polls have demonstrated that if the public had known the full extent of the laptop revelations they may have voted differently. How the public reacts to news is precisely why you have to have some restraint as a news editor. Because if you don't have restraint you end up being James Comey.
tenpies 4y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 4y ago
  I fully stand behind the NPR on this. I think the Hunter Biden laptop story is and was a distraction, and that the lives of family members of politicians should be off-limits for news coverage, positive or negative until they themselves insert themselves into the political arena. Let's face it squarely: the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.
  - no_circuit 4y ago
    The lives of family members of politicians and government employees should be completely on-limits for news coverage, provided that could be newsworthy, because using one's family is one method of laundering corruption. Let's say for example you need a permit approved by the CITYNAME Department of Buildings. CITYNAME is slow to process permit applications, but it is common knowledge that using a particular expeditor consulting company actually helps to get your permit approved quickly. It would definitely be newsworthy if that consulting company was owned by a spouse, sibling, parent, cousin, etc. of someone in the building department. I personally know someone who was not able to open up a store in a city I lived because the inspector literally said something was deficient and recommended some local company nearby to "fix it" for approximately $50,000. It is a similar reason why working in an investment bank, at least in the US, you have to agree that both you and your close family members must agree to trading restrictions so as not to pose a conflict of interest with any of the bank's clients. If such a restriction was not in place, then it would be easy to just pass insider information to your spouse or brother and have them make money based on news that is about to be announced.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Yes, using one's family can be used to launder money. But it can also be used to smear others. And because of that some prudence is required. And since all of the facts on that particular case have come out by now - or at least, given the ones that did come out without knowing whether or not that is exhaustive - I'd say the NPR made the right call.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

discussing incentives is understandable (even though your analogy doesn't fit because the government's minor funding isn't what's keeping NPR funded) suggesting that actual impropriety or improper influence occurs as a result is a conspiracy theory, and we'd need to see actual evidence that it actually happened to avoid dismissing it out of hand

justin66 4y ago

I think if you study this and read up on, for example, the Trump administration's attempts to turn VoA into a compliant propaganda outfit via the administration's control of USAGM, you might conclude that it's actually really hard to manipulate public media in this way. It's not a perfect system but it's pretty well designed.