22 ms·

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

392 points by coloneltcb 1y ago

DudeOpotomus 1y ago
[flagged]
- jimbokun 1y ago
  Convincing yourself that Trump is just dumb is a big part of why we're in this mess. Trump knows very well how to achieve his goals. The problem with Trump is his lack of any discernible ethics, morality, or compassion. Not his lack of ability to gain power and accomplish his goals.
  - DudeOpotomus 1y ago
    If you listen to him speak, he is not a smart person. What baffles me is how and why you'd think he was anything but an idiot. Everything about him and his actions and words reek of stupidity. He does not hold any understanding of the complexities of anything. He does not write. When he does, he misspells and uses incorrect grammar. He does not read. He has rudimentary understanding of basics. Etc. So why is it that you find him to be intelligent? What exactly does he say or write that would lead you to this conclusion?
    - jimbokun 1y ago
      And none of that has kept him from achieving his goals. He has a genius for communication and persuasion that is undeniably effective. He understands the weak points in our political system and attacks them directly. He's dumb when it comes to things educated people care about. But he's smart when it comes to getting what he wants.
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Did you consider that 30% of Americans are complete lunatics? Trump isn't clever or smart, he's batshit insane and appeals to the barely literate and *-ists that have been programmed with a bloodlust by Fox for two decades.
        mistrial9 1y ago
        35 percent of all statistical quotations are made up
        DudeOpotomus 1y ago
        The bell curve is hard for some people to grasp...
      - DudeOpotomus 1y ago
        This is an amazing take. You're actually equating his position as a political puppet to being smart. And worse, you actually think he is!
        jimbokun 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - kwere 1y ago
      [flagged]
hadrien01 1y ago
I suppose this is in response to this executive order: ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... I would add that PBS has this to say about public media funding: > The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that to the Brits, who spend roughly $100 per person per year for the BBC. Northern European countries spend well over $100 per person per year. > And it really shows in the health of their of their public broadcasting systems. They tend to view those systems as essential democratic infrastructure. And, indeed, data show that there is a positive correlation between the health of a public broadcasting system and the health of a democratic governance. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-history-of-public-media-in-the-u-s-as-republicans-target-federal-funding https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-history-of-p...
- gkolli 1y ago
  This part of the EO is peculiar: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether “the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)” are complying with the statutory mandate that “no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.” 47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action.” Why is the Secretary of Health and Human Services the one responsible for this?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Because RFK Jr is considered sufficiently loyal that they are willing to follow Trump's directives without question. This is the only qualification that truly matters to Trump. This qualification is particularly important for a role you want to use to arbitrarily punish people who aren't loyal enough.
  - threetonesun 1y ago
bhouston 1y ago
The US is so weird right now. You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. Also arresting and trying to deport people for things that are not clearly crimes (newspaper op-eds, etc) and without due process. Very strange times. Right now I have some faith the courts in the US will stand up to this and get the US back on track but I worry that dam may not hold forever. Saving grace is that his is not widely popular, although that is more for his tariff moves than for the others.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Not the first time, but few people remember the trail of tears and all the things done around that back then.
- mathgeek 1y ago
  > You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. It’s important to remember that while the President issues the orders, there are other actors behind the scenes writing them for him. They have goals that go beyond a single man considering ideological crimes.
  - bhouston 1y ago
    Can you explain and reference sources? Otherwise it is a pretty vague comment.
    - afavour 1y ago
      I would imagine Project 2025 is a good source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Every American owes it to themselves to familiarize themselves with the project and its aims, because a number of its authors are the ones wielding power right now.
mmastrac 1y ago
This is quite sad. PBS and NPR were jewels of the American system. The right-wing has latched on to the message that all public-funded media that isn't right-wing-biased is _bad_ and are trying to kill it everywhere. We are constantly fighting the same battle in Canada where the right-wing accuses media of being left-leaning, while most major news outlets are actually American-owned and slant right a lot of the time. We are truly in a post-fact world now.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  The good news is that the President has no authority whatsoever over the CPB, so they will likely not cut any funding to either of these.
  - mastax 1y ago
    At the end of the day, if the people in the executive who push the button to transfer the money decide to listen to the president over the courts or congress it doesn’t matter what the law says.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  It's the "reality has a left wing bias" problem. The modern right relies so heavily on misinformation, misdirection, hyperbole, and outright dishonesty that anything approaching objectivity is seen as biased.
- fblp 1y ago
  Yeah I remind my right wing friends that the "legacy media" practices "journalism" where the journalists are expected to engage in ethical practices including properly sourcing and researching their stories.
- matsemann 1y ago
  What's sad is that something that can take decades to build, can take a single term to destroy. Some things are not easily reverted when power changes. Sometimes it reminds me of a ratchet tool. One side can turn it and make changes, but the other side can only maintain status quo, and then the other side gains power again and turns it further. I'm at the other side of the world, but one example from my local area is the municipality selling off and privatizing lots of stuff. When the worm is out of the can, you can't get it back in.
jmclnx 1y ago
I heard of a study done in trump's first admin. It said this will hurt rural communities far more than urban. So as usual Trump supporters will be punished more than non-trump supporters.
- square_usual 1y ago
  They won't be punished. They're listening to wingnuts on AM radio, not NPR news stories.
  - mlhpdx 1y ago
    Have you checked that? As it turns out, public radio is very popular in rural areas. May I also point out that your assumptions and stereotypes only serve to reinforce others’ entrenchments.
    - joshstrange 1y ago
      > May I also point out that your assumptions and stereotypes only serve to reinforce others’ entrenchments. This is often repeated but I can't see how it could possibly hold true. Demonizing the other side has worked splendidly for republicans. Voters don't seem to care. Sure, they'll act all up in arms about "deplorables" (spoiler: they were then and are now, Hillary would have probably gone further by doubling down on that) but republicans say horrible things about democrats or people they see as "other" and it doesn't matter to their "family values" (a fully unmasked lie) voters. I'm tired of people pretending "If we were only a little nicer to the people trying destroy the country this never would have happened"
      - mlhpdx 1y ago
        For the sake of clarity, I’m not being nice and don’t expect it from others. I do however respect your contribution to the conversation and opinions.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  And they'll blame liberals for it anyway. Why does Trump care?
JSR_FDED 1y ago
When I first moved to the US (Bay Area) and discovered NPR in my first week there I almost couldn’t believe that there was such a source of high quality and thoughtful programming. The value destruction of the last few months has been astonishing.
- square_usual 1y ago
  Local radio stations are so good. I've been listening to them more in my car because they talk about local news, not the shit you read online. I haven't had a TV in ages, so this is my main way of staying in touch with what's going on around here.
  - ethagnawl 1y ago
    There are also plenty that make their programming available online and which is of general interest. It's quite fun, engaging and informative to dip into stations in places you've never been or places you remember fondly. One of my kids recently got a globe and that led to us trying to find Antarctica's ICE 104.5 FM AFAN online last night -- without success, sadly. The elephant in the room is that these stations must be supported. I've been donating to a few stations for many years and have recently donated to others and will continue to do so as long as I'm able. If I somehow wind up with an estate worth anything, I'd also love to be able to will something to one or more stations.
- bluGill 1y ago
  NPR gets the vast majority of funding (last I checked) from members. So make sure you donate at their next pledge drive.
  - lucky_cloud 1y ago
    Same for PBS and its member stations. The only truly worrying part of the EO for me is the "The heads of all agencies shall identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS." Some of the most interesting work we've done has been almost completely funded by the Department of Education. The station I work for has many sources of revenue but I suspect this will harm some smaller stations.
cyberlurker 1y ago
Is it unusual for an executive order to claim something like this without any citation or reference? > The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. > Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. > What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.
- beardedwizard 1y ago
  I'm a big supporter of NPR but you don't need to look hard to see their progressive bias.
  - testing22321 1y ago
    It’s utterly mind blowing how facts and the truth are now labeled a “progressive bias” in the US. It’s like you have to cover stuff up, deny and lie to be a conservative.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      > It’s like you have to cover stuff up, deny and lie to be a conservative. Depends which conservative is the president, now.
  - cyberlurker 1y ago
    I listen to planet money and a few other podcasts. They seem pretty fair to me. The only way I could maybe see a progressive bias is that they have representation in their staff of racial and sexual minorities. I see no issue with that. Honest question, does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows? I know they have a lot of minority representation. As usual, Trumps proposed solution is idiotic. But maybe there could be an unofficial settlement to make sure all perspectives are heard? Assuming this is even a problem… The attack on PBS seems ridiculous.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
jeffbee 1y ago
Funny because PBS and NPR bend over backwards to coddle Trump and his circle and to not seem oppositional. NPR national daily shows in particular cover Trump's shenanigans like the are reviewing the new BTS singles.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  They too get to learn that appeasing bullies does not work. At best you're sending them away for today, but they'll be back for your lunch money tomorrow.
- hobs 1y ago
  Yep, I stopped listening in the run up to the 2016 election as they made clear they were going to make space for both siding misinformation, lies, and the emotions of those who were fully bought into the propaganda machine. I find it a shell of its former self.
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    The thing that made me want to smash my car radio was Nina Totenberg reporting on Supreme Court cases. Just like so much of the rest of the American political center, Nina Totenberg is twenty years past her expiration date in ability to rise to the moment.
breadwinner 1y ago
The way to fight Trump is to form mutual defense pacts. For example, the Big Ten schools are forming a mutual defense pact [1]. All media should form a similar pact. Trump is attacking CBS 60 Minutes, New York Times, PBS, etc. Instead of giving in (big mistake, bully demands more), or fighting alone, they should form an alliance. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-michigan-schools-moves-110002985.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-michigan-schools-moves-11...
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  This administration will find itself suddenly a fan of antitrust actions if that becomes widespread.
erkt 1y ago
Not much of a quote. > “CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government. “In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors…’ 47 U.S.C. § 398(c).” I listen to NPR every day, have for over fifteen years. There is a lot more yelling at the radio these days. They are very open with their bias. They only promote programing that services the lefts cultural position. There is not a shred of balanced coverage here. They treat their economic and moral theory as accepted and undisputed fact. This isn't news anymore. Congress is forbidden from exercising editorial control, but is China? Love when they choose to push articles like this, or focus on Tik tok "stealing data" rather than "shamelessly influencing our children" with that data. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260742/tiktok-china-rednote-xiaohongshu-app https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260742/tiktok-china-re...
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  Congress isn't forbidden from exercising editorial control (can Congress forbid itself from doing anything except via constitutional amendment?). They forbade the executive branch from doing so whilst simultaneously imposing rules on what the CPB may fund. This looks like a thorny legal tangle indeed. It would appear incoherent lawmaking to insist that no "officer of the United States" can "exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors" whilst simultaneously legislating that it may not "contribute to or otherwise support any political party." Who is meant to enforce that rule exactly, if nobody who works for the US government is allowed to exercise any supervision or control? A literal reading would say that even the DoJ may not prosecute any infraction of the political neutrality rule, thus violating the principle that nobody is above the law.
- curiousgal 1y ago
  I am sorry but what the fuck does a balanced programming look like? Having an openly racist host spewing shit about women and immigrants?
Eextra953 1y ago
Another lame attempt at ruling by decree. The CPB was deliberately designed with guardrails to avoid partisanship - the president appoints board members, and no more than five from the same party. If you've listened to NPR or watched PBS, you know they're about as neutral as you can get while still covering both mainstream sides. This style of governance is so lazy - instead of working through Congress to change the law, he tries to bully an independent board into doing what he wants. It's also so easy to oppose, the board can just ignore it.
- adenverd 1y ago
  > If you've listened to NPR or watched PBS, you know they're about as neutral as you can get while still covering both mainstream sides. NPR is about as far from neutral as media gets, both in topics they choose to cover and in editorial bias.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    > NPR is about as far from neutral as media gets Really? While Fox and OAN exist? Care to provide any examples of that non neutrality?
diego_moita 1y ago
From the perspective of outside democracies it is almost laughable (or "cryable") to call the U.S. a democracy. Some of the most fundamental traits of an healthy democracy that the U.S. doesn't have: * the US doesn't have real alternation in power: only 3 other democratic countries in the world have the same duopoly of political parties the US has: Japan, Mexico and South Korea. These 2 parties have an absolute control of the political process. Democrats have all the means to block the rise of any socialist or Green party. Republicans have all the means to block the rise of a Libertarian party. Healthy democracies are not like that; parties rise and fall according to the changes of worldviews. * the US doesn't have real separation of powers: in a democracy the courts of law are supposed to work independently of the other branches. But in the US, judges are political agents loosely affiliated to the parties duopoly. They are elected to lower courts by party affiliations, with campaigns financed by the political parties. They rise in the courts' echelons by cultivating and nurturing this partisan loyalty. They are partisan agents in disguise. No other country practices this corruption of democracy principles. * bribing politicians is legal in the US. It is called "campaign financing" and it is ok and stimulated. No other country in the world accepts that.
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
  The electoral college system and it's winner-takes-all implementation in most states means that the vast majority of US citizens are disenfranchized - they are given the illusion of voting with that vote in fact being used against them -majority wins all of state's electoral college votes. So, yes, the US is not a real democracy in any meaningful definition of the word. It's not far from Russia or other countries where you can also put a vote in the box, but that won't affect the outcome of the election.
- carefulfungi 1y ago
  A fair critique, at least of national US politics. State and local democracies, which are extremely impactful to education, housing, roads, and most services Americans touch day-to-day, are quite different from the national news and face different challenges. However, I think your comment on campaign donations is incorrect. Donations are allowed in many OECD countries. See for example https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-integrity-outlook-2024_968587cd-en/full-report/component-9.html#chapter-d1e1782-b53ca616ea https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-int....
ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
If he actually cared about unbiased media, he would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which he won't do because that would kill Fox, Newsmax, and the rest of the Republican propaganda outlets.
- snarf21 1y ago
  Agreed. This is the root of the rise of evil in our country. I'm mostly pissed that Democrats were so short sighted to not reinstate it during Clinton or Obama. Now it is too late.
  - pdabbadabba 1y ago
    Alas, I'm confident that, if they had reinstated it, it would have been struck down by the Supreme Court by now for violating the First Amendment.
    - ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
      The Fairness Doctrine doesn't prevent you from saying anything, it just says for certain topics, you must also present the opposing view.
      - pdabbadabba 1y ago
        Yes. That's compelled speech which is also disfavored under the First Amendment. (It would probably be fair to say "prohibited" -- but, as always, it's complicated.) Of course, as I'm sure many here know, the Fairness Doctrine was previously upheld in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. So it's not totally clear cut. But I expect the current Supreme Court would have a very different view.
  - kwere 1y ago
    all benefitted, dem aligned media benefitted even more in crusading against Trump as it brought headlines and attention to opinion pieces. Ironically this reinforced Trump and allowed him to present himself as a victim of a witch hunt
whodidntante 1y ago
I watch/listen to a variety of news sources - CNN, Fox News, NPR, NYTimes, WSj, as well as a number of smaller podcasts and substacks. There are no longer "unbiased" news sources, all sources have moved to either the left or right. I used to have respect for NPR, today it is, to me, the Fox News of the left, and no different than other sources. I do not have a problem with that, it is what it is. But it should not be funded with taxpayer money. Try listening to the president of NPR at the congressional hearing and then her interview on NPR done shortly after that hearing. For the former, she was unable/unwilling to express any opinions, nor was she able to recall anything she personally said/posted for the past two years. For the latter, she was fed a series of flattering softball questions clearly made to make her and NPR look good. That is not news or reporting, it was NPR doing PR for NPR.
- mjevans 1y ago
  Under oath, with only offhand recollection of maybe facts, many people would prefer to say as little as possible. That seems only natural given the potential for accidentally lying if something remembered offhand turns out to be untrue or taken incorrectly. Contrast with a lower stakes interview, likely prepared for at least in general if not with vetted and researched questions?
  - whodidntante 1y ago
    Well, she had plenty of time to reflect on what she did not remember and had a perfect opportunity in the NPR interview to address that. Watch the Senate hearing. This was not a person that did not want to make an offhand statement. This was a person who clearly did not feel comfortable with what she knew she said to "her audience" but not comfortable when it came to a public audience. Many, many times. She sounded like someone repeatedly pleading the fifth. My opinion, of course.
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  > the Fox News of the left When I watch Fox News it's usually pretty easy to spot several things that are simply made-up per day. Including entire stories. You hear much of that on NPR? [EDIT] FWIW I think NPR news is god-awful, because they focus way too much on horse-race politics crap and Monday-morning quarterbacking campaigns, I suppose because they're so scared shitless by accusations of bias that they prefer to fill time with topics that are neutral and don't deal with actual issues at all, because we've been in a place for decades now where dealing with real issues in a serious way makes appearing "biased" against Republicans totally unavoidable.
philk10 1y ago
Seen on Bluesy "The NPR/PBS executive order is a sign of weakness. Republicans were going to put that cut into a rescission bill, which has been delayed as reconciliation took precedence. The likely story is that Republicans found that they didn't have the votes for it, so Trump had to go it alone."
- testing22321 1y ago
  It’s a sign of weakness because trump has to squash the truth from being broadcast so he can stay in power and do whatever he wants. Plenty of identical example in history, none of them lead to good things.
LightBug1 1y ago
RIP USA. Probably.
cryptoegorophy 1y ago
15% from federal funding? Doesn’t sound too bad? I thought it was more like 95%. They will survive.
- xienze 1y ago
  They’re like any public institution when funding is cut. Before cuts: “really folks, the public funding we receive is barely anything at all, why even bother, it’s a rounding error in the big scheme of things.” During cuts: “WHAT ARE YOU DOING THIS IS GOING TO DESTROY US AND DOOM THE COUNTRY!”
  - snozolli 1y ago
    As the other commenter explained, CPB will survive, but the shave will kill some local stations that receive their funding. That's a severe impact for some areas, and something they obviously want to avoid.
- vel0city 1y ago
  Lots of member stations are massively dependent on CPB. Without CBP funding those stations they'll go dark.
EcommerceFlow 1y ago
[flagged]
m2024 1y ago
[dead]
cnxsoft 1y ago
That tweet from NPRPublicEditor has probably something to do with this: https://x.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096 https://x.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096
HamsterDan 1y ago
I guess you can applaud Trump for taking the high ground here, but what he should have done is fired NPR and PBS's leadership and replaced them with rightwing equivalents. Maybe then Democrats would finally understand why it's so offensive to use taxpayer money to fund political propaganda.
- snkzxbs 1y ago
  [flagged]
- Eextra953 1y ago
  He doesn't have the power to fire NPR or PBS leadership. Just because he's president doesn't mean he can make decisions for independent organizations.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
    I think you mean he shouldn't have the power. What we are seeing is that he is ignoring the law, and the supposed system of checks and balances, of the three branches of government, and ultimately the US constitution, is ill-prepared to deal with the combination of a rogue president who is supported by his own party.
  - kwere 1y ago
    if you would cease to exist without public funding you are not and indipendent organization
throw7 1y ago
I'm fine with U.S. pulling back funding for CFPB. I always found it ironic that corporate supported CSPAN has done a great job of informative programming while CFPB/NPR is barely listenable/watchable. IMO, it really goes to show, it's not necessarily funding sources, but a matter of leadership/authority. The captain steers the boat so to speak. I've always been impressed with Brian Lamb.
- timmytokyo 1y ago
  If you want to remove public funding for public broadcasting, do it through the US Congress. The president does not have this authority.
jmward01 1y ago
People love the idea that the pendulum always swings back but that is survivor bias. The graveyard of history is filled with civilizations where the pendulum failed to swing back the last time. I have no faith that the US is exempt from history, but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to defy it. No reason we can't at least try to push the pendulum back one more time and put in place better safeguards. Get out there. Vote because you still can. Write your representatives because you still can. Boycott because you still can. Tell people they are wrong when they spout hate and lies. Do the things you still can because it is now clear that there are things you can't do freely and that list, unfortunately, is growing.
- jmward01 1y ago
  Questioning why something gets down voted is a great way to get more down votes, but I gotta ask, why did this get down voted? Is this just a bot going and down voting anything that appears against the current administration? I am now taking a stand so I really don't care about karma points. If you down voted my comment, or this one, tell me why. Democracies die without discussion so share you disagreement and discuss it. That would actually be a great feature for HN, no down vote without a comment or you loose a karma point yourself.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  Bold of you to assume that voting will be able to change anything - will future votes not be rampant with corrupt practices? What controls will still be in place to ensure that?
  - jmward01 1y ago
    Use it or loose it. Voter fraud has never been an issue, it has been voter disenfranchisement that has been the biggest problem. It is very likely that elections going forward will see that trend rise dramatically all while keeping people, incorrectly, focused on fraud. Either way, don't give up. Vote. Get others to vote. Help them get over the hurdles placed in front of them to block their voting. It is possible to make a difference even if it is harder now than it was before.
vjulian 1y ago
All news organizations come with an editorial perspective or bias. Why is this so difficult for news organisations to admit? (I’m an NPR listener, by the way.)
ncr100 1y ago
It is a shame the US Presidency is arguably hurting the US by reducing its soft power, education, national defense. It has failed to argue that it is in a National Emergency of Invasion as justification for deporting citizens and aliens without Due Process.
golemotron 1y ago
The idea that Congress can set up agencies that are outside the control of the Executive needs to be revisited. It leads to rogue, unaccountable bureaucracy.
- binarycrusader 1y ago
  They are, at minimum, accountable to congress, therefore that is a lie. There is a reason the US has three branches of government instead of one despite misguided individuals that believe otherwise. Whether they are “co-equal” depends on who you ask but it is a lie to claim they are not accountable when their accountability is to congress directly via funding.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  The entire point of the constitution is to remove control from the Executive. The point was to eliminate the concept of a king. The president was meant as a figurehead, with almost no power.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ck2 1y ago
He keeps doing illegal things because there is absolutely no penalty for being unlawful Congress fully funded CPB (NPR, PBS, etc.) through September 2027 in the Continuing Resolution PASSED THIS YEAR BY THIS CONGRESS
smeg_it 1y ago
From my understanding other presidents, on both sides, have pushed the boundaries/limits of executive orders but, as far as I understand it, his use is unprecedented. I had to read the wiki on them, but it's not supposed to be used outside of the executive branch unless supported by law or the constitution. I guess the grey area is "implied" in the below portion from Wikipedia. "The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself" If something were to be de-funded, it should be done by the congress as that's where it was initially funded right? It seems to me the our checks and balances are failing. The judicial branch, at least at the highest level, seems to be mostly supporting him, even when they don't have much or any constitutional ground to do so.
arctics 1y ago
I find the whole discussion here that Trump is Hitler propagated by our government is quite amusing, yet again reaffirming 1960s, 1980s, 2000s were inconsequential. Asch paradigm still dominates our reasoning after so many years of grinding for liberal values.
thebiglebrewski 1y ago
You can say all you want about NPR or PBS being "left-leaning". But isn't this just a symptom of them telling the truth vs the lies that are spouted out of this administration every single day? If you report the truth now, I guess you're "left-leaning" or "biased" vs reporting whatever the admin says as fact with no comment or fact checking. NPR and PBS fact check their reporting and have real journalists. Fox News lies all of the time on the air and has media personalities as hosts. Yes, of course, there's no absolutes and some hosts or shows are more biased than others, and people make mistakes. Hosts show their biases unconsciously sometimes too. If your host lives in New York for instance, their views are shaped by that, vs if they live in Kentucky. But this politicization of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service is ridiculous and just shows how much this administration is trying to get us into a post-truth world. Facts matter! Don't succumb to this Culture of Fear.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
RandomUser4976 1y ago
I want off this train. I’m voting, protesting and only spending my money at places I know are not actively supporting Trump and. It rolling back DEI, (looking at you Target). Still feeling pretty helpless that it’s only going to get worse for us and for my children’s future.
Nifty3929 1y ago
Always a good idea the actual text of these things, to get a true idea of what is actually being changed and why: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... It doesn't take away CPB's money - it just tells them that they can't fund NPR and PBS anymore, but NPR only gets about 1% of it's funding from CPB anyway. I couldn't find the number for PBS.

392 points by coloneltcb 1y ago

DudeOpotomus 1y ago

[flagged]

jimbokun 1y ago
Convincing yourself that Trump is just dumb is a big part of why we're in this mess. Trump knows very well how to achieve his goals. The problem with Trump is his lack of any discernible ethics, morality, or compassion. Not his lack of ability to gain power and accomplish his goals.
- DudeOpotomus 1y ago
  If you listen to him speak, he is not a smart person. What baffles me is how and why you'd think he was anything but an idiot. Everything about him and his actions and words reek of stupidity. He does not hold any understanding of the complexities of anything. He does not write. When he does, he misspells and uses incorrect grammar. He does not read. He has rudimentary understanding of basics. Etc. So why is it that you find him to be intelligent? What exactly does he say or write that would lead you to this conclusion?
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    And none of that has kept him from achieving his goals. He has a genius for communication and persuasion that is undeniably effective. He understands the weak points in our political system and attacks them directly. He's dumb when it comes to things educated people care about. But he's smart when it comes to getting what he wants.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      Did you consider that 30% of Americans are complete lunatics? Trump isn't clever or smart, he's batshit insane and appeals to the barely literate and *-ists that have been programmed with a bloodlust by Fox for two decades.
      - mistrial9 1y ago
        35 percent of all statistical quotations are made up
        DudeOpotomus 1y ago
        The bell curve is hard for some people to grasp...
    - DudeOpotomus 1y ago
      This is an amazing take. You're actually equating his position as a political puppet to being smart. And worse, you actually think he is!
      - jimbokun 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - kwere 1y ago
    [flagged]

hadrien01 1y ago

I suppose this is in response to this executive order: ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... I would add that PBS has this to say about public media funding: > The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that to the Brits, who spend roughly $100 per person per year for the BBC. Northern European countries spend well over $100 per person per year. > And it really shows in the health of their of their public broadcasting systems. They tend to view those systems as essential democratic infrastructure. And, indeed, data show that there is a positive correlation between the health of a public broadcasting system and the health of a democratic governance. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-history-of-public-media-in-the-u-s-as-republicans-target-federal-funding https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-history-of-p...

gkolli 1y ago
This part of the EO is peculiar: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether “the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)” are complying with the statutory mandate that “no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.” 47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action.” Why is the Secretary of Health and Human Services the one responsible for this?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  Because RFK Jr is considered sufficiently loyal that they are willing to follow Trump's directives without question. This is the only qualification that truly matters to Trump. This qualification is particularly important for a role you want to use to arbitrarily punish people who aren't loyal enough.
- threetonesun 1y ago

bhouston 1y ago

The US is so weird right now. You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. Also arresting and trying to deport people for things that are not clearly crimes (newspaper op-eds, etc) and without due process. Very strange times. Right now I have some faith the courts in the US will stand up to this and get the US back on track but I worry that dam may not hold forever. Saving grace is that his is not widely popular, although that is more for his tariff moves than for the others.

bluGill 1y ago
Not the first time, but few people remember the trail of tears and all the things done around that back then.
mathgeek 1y ago
> You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes. It’s important to remember that while the President issues the orders, there are other actors behind the scenes writing them for him. They have goals that go beyond a single man considering ideological crimes.
- bhouston 1y ago
  Can you explain and reference sources? Otherwise it is a pretty vague comment.
  - afavour 1y ago
    I would imagine Project 2025 is a good source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Every American owes it to themselves to familiarize themselves with the project and its aims, because a number of its authors are the ones wielding power right now.

mmastrac 1y ago

This is quite sad. PBS and NPR were jewels of the American system. The right-wing has latched on to the message that all public-funded media that isn't right-wing-biased is _bad_ and are trying to kill it everywhere. We are constantly fighting the same battle in Canada where the right-wing accuses media of being left-leaning, while most major news outlets are actually American-owned and slant right a lot of the time. We are truly in a post-fact world now.

tsimionescu 1y ago
The good news is that the President has no authority whatsoever over the CPB, so they will likely not cut any funding to either of these.
- mastax 1y ago
  At the end of the day, if the people in the executive who push the button to transfer the money decide to listen to the president over the courts or congress it doesn’t matter what the law says.
sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
It's the "reality has a left wing bias" problem. The modern right relies so heavily on misinformation, misdirection, hyperbole, and outright dishonesty that anything approaching objectivity is seen as biased.
fblp 1y ago
Yeah I remind my right wing friends that the "legacy media" practices "journalism" where the journalists are expected to engage in ethical practices including properly sourcing and researching their stories.
matsemann 1y ago
What's sad is that something that can take decades to build, can take a single term to destroy. Some things are not easily reverted when power changes. Sometimes it reminds me of a ratchet tool. One side can turn it and make changes, but the other side can only maintain status quo, and then the other side gains power again and turns it further. I'm at the other side of the world, but one example from my local area is the municipality selling off and privatizing lots of stuff. When the worm is out of the can, you can't get it back in.

jmclnx 1y ago

I heard of a study done in trump's first admin. It said this will hurt rural communities far more than urban. So as usual Trump supporters will be punished more than non-trump supporters.

square_usual 1y ago
They won't be punished. They're listening to wingnuts on AM radio, not NPR news stories.
- mlhpdx 1y ago
  Have you checked that? As it turns out, public radio is very popular in rural areas. May I also point out that your assumptions and stereotypes only serve to reinforce others’ entrenchments.
  - joshstrange 1y ago
    > May I also point out that your assumptions and stereotypes only serve to reinforce others’ entrenchments. This is often repeated but I can't see how it could possibly hold true. Demonizing the other side has worked splendidly for republicans. Voters don't seem to care. Sure, they'll act all up in arms about "deplorables" (spoiler: they were then and are now, Hillary would have probably gone further by doubling down on that) but republicans say horrible things about democrats or people they see as "other" and it doesn't matter to their "family values" (a fully unmasked lie) voters. I'm tired of people pretending "If we were only a little nicer to the people trying destroy the country this never would have happened"
    - mlhpdx 1y ago
      For the sake of clarity, I’m not being nice and don’t expect it from others. I do however respect your contribution to the conversation and opinions.
Tadpole9181 1y ago
And they'll blame liberals for it anyway. Why does Trump care?

JSR_FDED 1y ago

When I first moved to the US (Bay Area) and discovered NPR in my first week there I almost couldn’t believe that there was such a source of high quality and thoughtful programming. The value destruction of the last few months has been astonishing.

square_usual 1y ago
Local radio stations are so good. I've been listening to them more in my car because they talk about local news, not the shit you read online. I haven't had a TV in ages, so this is my main way of staying in touch with what's going on around here.
- ethagnawl 1y ago
  There are also plenty that make their programming available online and which is of general interest. It's quite fun, engaging and informative to dip into stations in places you've never been or places you remember fondly. One of my kids recently got a globe and that led to us trying to find Antarctica's ICE 104.5 FM AFAN online last night -- without success, sadly. The elephant in the room is that these stations must be supported. I've been donating to a few stations for many years and have recently donated to others and will continue to do so as long as I'm able. If I somehow wind up with an estate worth anything, I'd also love to be able to will something to one or more stations.
bluGill 1y ago
NPR gets the vast majority of funding (last I checked) from members. So make sure you donate at their next pledge drive.
- lucky_cloud 1y ago
  Same for PBS and its member stations. The only truly worrying part of the EO for me is the "The heads of all agencies shall identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS." Some of the most interesting work we've done has been almost completely funded by the Department of Education. The station I work for has many sources of revenue but I suspect this will harm some smaller stations.

cyberlurker 1y ago

Is it unusual for an executive order to claim something like this without any citation or reference? > The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. > Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. > What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.

beardedwizard 1y ago
I'm a big supporter of NPR but you don't need to look hard to see their progressive bias.
- testing22321 1y ago
  It’s utterly mind blowing how facts and the truth are now labeled a “progressive bias” in the US. It’s like you have to cover stuff up, deny and lie to be a conservative.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > It’s like you have to cover stuff up, deny and lie to be a conservative. Depends which conservative is the president, now.
- cyberlurker 1y ago
  I listen to planet money and a few other podcasts. They seem pretty fair to me. The only way I could maybe see a progressive bias is that they have representation in their staff of racial and sexual minorities. I see no issue with that. Honest question, does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows? I know they have a lot of minority representation. As usual, Trumps proposed solution is idiotic. But maybe there could be an unofficial settlement to make sure all perspectives are heard? Assuming this is even a problem… The attack on PBS seems ridiculous.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago

jeffbee 1y ago

Funny because PBS and NPR bend over backwards to coddle Trump and his circle and to not seem oppositional. NPR national daily shows in particular cover Trump's shenanigans like the are reviewing the new BTS singles.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
They too get to learn that appeasing bullies does not work. At best you're sending them away for today, but they'll be back for your lunch money tomorrow.
hobs 1y ago
Yep, I stopped listening in the run up to the 2016 election as they made clear they were going to make space for both siding misinformation, lies, and the emotions of those who were fully bought into the propaganda machine. I find it a shell of its former self.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  The thing that made me want to smash my car radio was Nina Totenberg reporting on Supreme Court cases. Just like so much of the rest of the American political center, Nina Totenberg is twenty years past her expiration date in ability to rise to the moment.

breadwinner 1y ago

The way to fight Trump is to form mutual defense pacts. For example, the Big Ten schools are forming a mutual defense pact [1]. All media should form a similar pact. Trump is attacking CBS 60 Minutes, New York Times, PBS, etc. Instead of giving in (big mistake, bully demands more), or fighting alone, they should form an alliance. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-michigan-schools-moves-110002985.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-michigan-schools-moves-11...

ceejayoz 1y ago
This administration will find itself suddenly a fan of antitrust actions if that becomes widespread.

erkt 1y ago

Not much of a quote. > “CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government. “In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors…’ 47 U.S.C. § 398(c).” I listen to NPR every day, have for over fifteen years. There is a lot more yelling at the radio these days. They are very open with their bias. They only promote programing that services the lefts cultural position. There is not a shred of balanced coverage here. They treat their economic and moral theory as accepted and undisputed fact. This isn't news anymore. Congress is forbidden from exercising editorial control, but is China? Love when they choose to push articles like this, or focus on Tik tok "stealing data" rather than "shamelessly influencing our children" with that data. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260742/tiktok-china-rednote-xiaohongshu-app https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5260742/tiktok-china-re...

mike_hearn 1y ago
Congress isn't forbidden from exercising editorial control (can Congress forbid itself from doing anything except via constitutional amendment?). They forbade the executive branch from doing so whilst simultaneously imposing rules on what the CPB may fund. This looks like a thorny legal tangle indeed. It would appear incoherent lawmaking to insist that no "officer of the United States" can "exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors" whilst simultaneously legislating that it may not "contribute to or otherwise support any political party." Who is meant to enforce that rule exactly, if nobody who works for the US government is allowed to exercise any supervision or control? A literal reading would say that even the DoJ may not prosecute any infraction of the political neutrality rule, thus violating the principle that nobody is above the law.
curiousgal 1y ago
I am sorry but what the fuck does a balanced programming look like? Having an openly racist host spewing shit about women and immigrants?

Eextra953 1y ago

Another lame attempt at ruling by decree. The CPB was deliberately designed with guardrails to avoid partisanship - the president appoints board members, and no more than five from the same party. If you've listened to NPR or watched PBS, you know they're about as neutral as you can get while still covering both mainstream sides. This style of governance is so lazy - instead of working through Congress to change the law, he tries to bully an independent board into doing what he wants. It's also so easy to oppose, the board can just ignore it.

adenverd 1y ago
> If you've listened to NPR or watched PBS, you know they're about as neutral as you can get while still covering both mainstream sides. NPR is about as far from neutral as media gets, both in topics they choose to cover and in editorial bias.
- sofixa 1y ago
  > NPR is about as far from neutral as media gets Really? While Fox and OAN exist? Care to provide any examples of that non neutrality?

diego_moita 1y ago

From the perspective of outside democracies it is almost laughable (or "cryable") to call the U.S. a democracy. Some of the most fundamental traits of an healthy democracy that the U.S. doesn't have: * the US doesn't have real alternation in power: only 3 other democratic countries in the world have the same duopoly of political parties the US has: Japan, Mexico and South Korea. These 2 parties have an absolute control of the political process. Democrats have all the means to block the rise of any socialist or Green party. Republicans have all the means to block the rise of a Libertarian party. Healthy democracies are not like that; parties rise and fall according to the changes of worldviews. * the US doesn't have real separation of powers: in a democracy the courts of law are supposed to work independently of the other branches. But in the US, judges are political agents loosely affiliated to the parties duopoly. They are elected to lower courts by party affiliations, with campaigns financed by the political parties. They rise in the courts' echelons by cultivating and nurturing this partisan loyalty. They are partisan agents in disguise. No other country practices this corruption of democracy principles. * bribing politicians is legal in the US. It is called "campaign financing" and it is ok and stimulated. No other country in the world accepts that.

HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
The electoral college system and it's winner-takes-all implementation in most states means that the vast majority of US citizens are disenfranchized - they are given the illusion of voting with that vote in fact being used against them -majority wins all of state's electoral college votes. So, yes, the US is not a real democracy in any meaningful definition of the word. It's not far from Russia or other countries where you can also put a vote in the box, but that won't affect the outcome of the election.
carefulfungi 1y ago
A fair critique, at least of national US politics. State and local democracies, which are extremely impactful to education, housing, roads, and most services Americans touch day-to-day, are quite different from the national news and face different challenges. However, I think your comment on campaign donations is incorrect. Donations are allowed in many OECD countries. See for example https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-integrity-outlook-2024_968587cd-en/full-report/component-9.html#chapter-d1e1782-b53ca616ea https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-int....

ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago

If he actually cared about unbiased media, he would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which he won't do because that would kill Fox, Newsmax, and the rest of the Republican propaganda outlets.

snarf21 1y ago
Agreed. This is the root of the rise of evil in our country. I'm mostly pissed that Democrats were so short sighted to not reinstate it during Clinton or Obama. Now it is too late.
- pdabbadabba 1y ago
  Alas, I'm confident that, if they had reinstated it, it would have been struck down by the Supreme Court by now for violating the First Amendment.
  - ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
    The Fairness Doctrine doesn't prevent you from saying anything, it just says for certain topics, you must also present the opposing view.
    - pdabbadabba 1y ago
      Yes. That's compelled speech which is also disfavored under the First Amendment. (It would probably be fair to say "prohibited" -- but, as always, it's complicated.) Of course, as I'm sure many here know, the Fairness Doctrine was previously upheld in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. So it's not totally clear cut. But I expect the current Supreme Court would have a very different view.
- kwere 1y ago
  all benefitted, dem aligned media benefitted even more in crusading against Trump as it brought headlines and attention to opinion pieces. Ironically this reinforced Trump and allowed him to present himself as a victim of a witch hunt

whodidntante 1y ago

I watch/listen to a variety of news sources - CNN, Fox News, NPR, NYTimes, WSj, as well as a number of smaller podcasts and substacks. There are no longer "unbiased" news sources, all sources have moved to either the left or right. I used to have respect for NPR, today it is, to me, the Fox News of the left, and no different than other sources. I do not have a problem with that, it is what it is. But it should not be funded with taxpayer money. Try listening to the president of NPR at the congressional hearing and then her interview on NPR done shortly after that hearing. For the former, she was unable/unwilling to express any opinions, nor was she able to recall anything she personally said/posted for the past two years. For the latter, she was fed a series of flattering softball questions clearly made to make her and NPR look good. That is not news or reporting, it was NPR doing PR for NPR.

mjevans 1y ago
Under oath, with only offhand recollection of maybe facts, many people would prefer to say as little as possible. That seems only natural given the potential for accidentally lying if something remembered offhand turns out to be untrue or taken incorrectly. Contrast with a lower stakes interview, likely prepared for at least in general if not with vetted and researched questions?
- whodidntante 1y ago
  Well, she had plenty of time to reflect on what she did not remember and had a perfect opportunity in the NPR interview to address that. Watch the Senate hearing. This was not a person that did not want to make an offhand statement. This was a person who clearly did not feel comfortable with what she knew she said to "her audience" but not comfortable when it came to a public audience. Many, many times. She sounded like someone repeatedly pleading the fifth. My opinion, of course.
alabastervlog 1y ago
> the Fox News of the left When I watch Fox News it's usually pretty easy to spot several things that are simply made-up per day. Including entire stories. You hear much of that on NPR? [EDIT] FWIW I think NPR news is god-awful, because they focus way too much on horse-race politics crap and Monday-morning quarterbacking campaigns, I suppose because they're so scared shitless by accusations of bias that they prefer to fill time with topics that are neutral and don't deal with actual issues at all, because we've been in a place for decades now where dealing with real issues in a serious way makes appearing "biased" against Republicans totally unavoidable.

philk10 1y ago

Seen on Bluesy "The NPR/PBS executive order is a sign of weakness. Republicans were going to put that cut into a rescission bill, which has been delayed as reconciliation took precedence. The likely story is that Republicans found that they didn't have the votes for it, so Trump had to go it alone."

testing22321 1y ago
It’s a sign of weakness because trump has to squash the truth from being broadcast so he can stay in power and do whatever he wants. Plenty of identical example in history, none of them lead to good things.

LightBug1 1y ago

RIP USA. Probably.

cryptoegorophy 1y ago

15% from federal funding? Doesn’t sound too bad? I thought it was more like 95%. They will survive.

xienze 1y ago
They’re like any public institution when funding is cut. Before cuts: “really folks, the public funding we receive is barely anything at all, why even bother, it’s a rounding error in the big scheme of things.” During cuts: “WHAT ARE YOU DOING THIS IS GOING TO DESTROY US AND DOOM THE COUNTRY!”
- snozolli 1y ago
  As the other commenter explained, CPB will survive, but the shave will kill some local stations that receive their funding. That's a severe impact for some areas, and something they obviously want to avoid.
vel0city 1y ago
Lots of member stations are massively dependent on CPB. Without CBP funding those stations they'll go dark.

EcommerceFlow 1y ago

[flagged]

m2024 1y ago

[dead]

cnxsoft 1y ago

That tweet from NPRPublicEditor has probably something to do with this: https://x.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096 https://x.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096

HamsterDan 1y ago

I guess you can applaud Trump for taking the high ground here, but what he should have done is fired NPR and PBS's leadership and replaced them with rightwing equivalents. Maybe then Democrats would finally understand why it's so offensive to use taxpayer money to fund political propaganda.

snkzxbs 1y ago
[flagged]
Eextra953 1y ago
He doesn't have the power to fire NPR or PBS leadership. Just because he's president doesn't mean he can make decisions for independent organizations.
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
  I think you mean he shouldn't have the power. What we are seeing is that he is ignoring the law, and the supposed system of checks and balances, of the three branches of government, and ultimately the US constitution, is ill-prepared to deal with the combination of a rogue president who is supported by his own party.
- kwere 1y ago
  if you would cease to exist without public funding you are not and indipendent organization

throw7 1y ago

I'm fine with U.S. pulling back funding for CFPB. I always found it ironic that corporate supported CSPAN has done a great job of informative programming while CFPB/NPR is barely listenable/watchable. IMO, it really goes to show, it's not necessarily funding sources, but a matter of leadership/authority. The captain steers the boat so to speak. I've always been impressed with Brian Lamb.

timmytokyo 1y ago
If you want to remove public funding for public broadcasting, do it through the US Congress. The president does not have this authority.

jmward01 1y ago

People love the idea that the pendulum always swings back but that is survivor bias. The graveyard of history is filled with civilizations where the pendulum failed to swing back the last time. I have no faith that the US is exempt from history, but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to defy it. No reason we can't at least try to push the pendulum back one more time and put in place better safeguards. Get out there. Vote because you still can. Write your representatives because you still can. Boycott because you still can. Tell people they are wrong when they spout hate and lies. Do the things you still can because it is now clear that there are things you can't do freely and that list, unfortunately, is growing.

jmward01 1y ago
Questioning why something gets down voted is a great way to get more down votes, but I gotta ask, why did this get down voted? Is this just a bot going and down voting anything that appears against the current administration? I am now taking a stand so I really don't care about karma points. If you down voted my comment, or this one, tell me why. Democracies die without discussion so share you disagreement and discuss it. That would actually be a great feature for HN, no down vote without a comment or you loose a karma point yourself.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
Bold of you to assume that voting will be able to change anything - will future votes not be rampant with corrupt practices? What controls will still be in place to ensure that?
- jmward01 1y ago
  Use it or loose it. Voter fraud has never been an issue, it has been voter disenfranchisement that has been the biggest problem. It is very likely that elections going forward will see that trend rise dramatically all while keeping people, incorrectly, focused on fraud. Either way, don't give up. Vote. Get others to vote. Help them get over the hurdles placed in front of them to block their voting. It is possible to make a difference even if it is harder now than it was before.

vjulian 1y ago

All news organizations come with an editorial perspective or bias. Why is this so difficult for news organisations to admit? (I’m an NPR listener, by the way.)

ncr100 1y ago

It is a shame the US Presidency is arguably hurting the US by reducing its soft power, education, national defense. It has failed to argue that it is in a National Emergency of Invasion as justification for deporting citizens and aliens without Due Process.

golemotron 1y ago

The idea that Congress can set up agencies that are outside the control of the Executive needs to be revisited. It leads to rogue, unaccountable bureaucracy.

binarycrusader 1y ago
They are, at minimum, accountable to congress, therefore that is a lie. There is a reason the US has three branches of government instead of one despite misguided individuals that believe otherwise. Whether they are “co-equal” depends on who you ask but it is a lie to claim they are not accountable when their accountability is to congress directly via funding.
mrguyorama 1y ago
The entire point of the constitution is to remove control from the Executive. The point was to eliminate the concept of a king. The president was meant as a figurehead, with almost no power.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ck2 1y ago

He keeps doing illegal things because there is absolutely no penalty for being unlawful Congress fully funded CPB (NPR, PBS, etc.) through September 2027 in the Continuing Resolution PASSED THIS YEAR BY THIS CONGRESS

smeg_it 1y ago

From my understanding other presidents, on both sides, have pushed the boundaries/limits of executive orders but, as far as I understand it, his use is unprecedented. I had to read the wiki on them, but it's not supposed to be used outside of the executive branch unless supported by law or the constitution. I guess the grey area is "implied" in the below portion from Wikipedia. "The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself" If something were to be de-funded, it should be done by the congress as that's where it was initially funded right? It seems to me the our checks and balances are failing. The judicial branch, at least at the highest level, seems to be mostly supporting him, even when they don't have much or any constitutional ground to do so.

arctics 1y ago

I find the whole discussion here that Trump is Hitler propagated by our government is quite amusing, yet again reaffirming 1960s, 1980s, 2000s were inconsequential. Asch paradigm still dominates our reasoning after so many years of grinding for liberal values.

thebiglebrewski 1y ago

You can say all you want about NPR or PBS being "left-leaning". But isn't this just a symptom of them telling the truth vs the lies that are spouted out of this administration every single day? If you report the truth now, I guess you're "left-leaning" or "biased" vs reporting whatever the admin says as fact with no comment or fact checking. NPR and PBS fact check their reporting and have real journalists. Fox News lies all of the time on the air and has media personalities as hosts. Yes, of course, there's no absolutes and some hosts or shows are more biased than others, and people make mistakes. Hosts show their biases unconsciously sometimes too. If your host lives in New York for instance, their views are shaped by that, vs if they live in Kentucky. But this politicization of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service is ridiculous and just shows how much this administration is trying to get us into a post-truth world. Facts matter! Don't succumb to this Culture of Fear.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

RandomUser4976 1y ago

I want off this train. I’m voting, protesting and only spending my money at places I know are not actively supporting Trump and. It rolling back DEI, (looking at you Target). Still feeling pretty helpless that it’s only going to get worse for us and for my children’s future.

Nifty3929 1y ago

Always a good idea the actual text of these things, to get a true idea of what is actually being changed and why: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... It doesn't take away CPB's money - it just tells them that they can't fund NPR and PBS anymore, but NPR only gets about 1% of it's funding from CPB anyway. I couldn't find the number for PBS.