The Race to Rescue PBS and NPR Stations(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Race to Rescue PBS and NPR Stations
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/business/the-race-to-rescue-pbs-and-npr-stations.html
12 comments
Perfect opportunity for a crowdfunding effort to get us through a year until the midterms. If the Dems can’t take back the house in the midterms then it’s game over but for now this is the perfect opportunity for private funding to keep PBS and NPR afloat for the short term.
>If the Dems can’t take back the house in the midterms then it’s game over but for now
And if they do, what happens in the next 2-4 years if they lose power again? I'm not really weighing in on the specific political issues here, but wondering what we do about extreme pendulum swings every few years as the government changes parties.
And if they do, what happens in the next 2-4 years if they lose power again? I'm not really weighing in on the specific political issues here, but wondering what we do about extreme pendulum swings every few years as the government changes parties.
break the two party strangle hold that only has to appeal to the extremes to win. (this is a both sides argument)
Every party system in the United States - there have been several [0] - has been a duopoly. This is a natural outcome of a first past the post, single representative per district electoral system (see also: the UK).
The extremity in current politics - and among elected politicians wielding power, such is to be found much more on the right - is in part a function of two trends: the gerrymandering of those districts, and the tendency for states and areas to become more ideologically homogenous. (I’m not sure of the latter’s root cause - perhaps internal migration or new media consumption patterns.)
Both of these trends tend to shift the political competition in those districts, be they states or house districts, towards purity tests over compromise. One wins a primary by being the most extreme; if the primary matters more than the general, extremity increases generally.
If you want to reduce extremity, fight partisan redistricting.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_Unite...
The extremity in current politics - and among elected politicians wielding power, such is to be found much more on the right - is in part a function of two trends: the gerrymandering of those districts, and the tendency for states and areas to become more ideologically homogenous. (I’m not sure of the latter’s root cause - perhaps internal migration or new media consumption patterns.)
Both of these trends tend to shift the political competition in those districts, be they states or house districts, towards purity tests over compromise. One wins a primary by being the most extreme; if the primary matters more than the general, extremity increases generally.
If you want to reduce extremity, fight partisan redistricting.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_Unite...
The Democrats are often blamed for failing to appeal to their extremes. They are often said to be equivalent to a right-wing party in Europe -- not quite true, but certainly well to the right any European left-wing party.
It has been extremely evident over the past several years that the news coverage and other content from NPR is far from politically neutral. If they can't maintain neutrality, they should not get public funding. I don't see how this is controversial. If they were producing a bunch of right-wing or right-coded content, the author of this article would be rejoicing about it. If their content is valuable to their audience, it should be able to stand on its own. The only thing I am a little bit sad about here is PBS and some of their educational content for kids. Some of that stuff was top-notch. Hopefully this can find some way to also stand on its own.
If y'all view NPR as biased, I'm afraid there's very little hope for you.
You'd be better served watching RT news, truly unbiased and glorious like its unfallible motherland.
You'd be better served watching RT news, truly unbiased and glorious like its unfallible motherland.
> If y'all view NPR as biased, I'm afraid there's very little hope for you.
What do you mean y'all? What group are you putting me in? I am not a Republican. If you can't see the obvious bias in NPR's reporting, the stories they choose to tell and from what angles, etc. then you might be in an information bubble. It's clear as day to me and a lot of others as well.
What do you mean y'all? What group are you putting me in? I am not a Republican. If you can't see the obvious bias in NPR's reporting, the stories they choose to tell and from what angles, etc. then you might be in an information bubble. It's clear as day to me and a lot of others as well.
NPR and PBS are not the only beneficieries from CPB funding. In fact, CPB funding only accounts for about 1% of NPR's revenue. NPR is definitely biased but will be fine.
Who won't be fine, however, are the thousands of radio and public TV stations across the political spectrum for whom CPB funding makes up a substantial portion of their funding.
Every dollar counts for these stations, and seeing our administration decide that public media should die (or, more likely, get swallowed up even more aggressively by Clear Channel/Sinclair) because they're too "woke" is a real shame.
Also, CPB was the sole grantor of the NextGen Warning System program, which is ending once CPB shuts down.
Who won't be fine, however, are the thousands of radio and public TV stations across the political spectrum for whom CPB funding makes up a substantial portion of their funding.
Every dollar counts for these stations, and seeing our administration decide that public media should die (or, more likely, get swallowed up even more aggressively by Clear Channel/Sinclair) because they're too "woke" is a real shame.
Also, CPB was the sole grantor of the NextGen Warning System program, which is ending once CPB shuts down.
[deleted]