Thoughts? Shouldn't conservatives feel generous to subsidize failing ideas with good hearted charity?
NPR might lose government cheese?
Posts
Total:
22
-->
@Greyparrot
The thing that bugs me in all of this is a really simple, obvious, rhetorical question:
Why the FUCK is our government funding journalists?!
-->
@Mharman
one word. Propaganda.
-->
@Greyparrot
one word. Propaganda.
Right wing code for: "facts I don't like"
-->
@Double_R
it's a fact it was run by 100% Democrats.
Do you like that fact?
87 Democrats in editorial positions
-->
@Greyparrot
it's a fact it was run by 100% Democrats.Do you like that fact?87 Democrats in editorial positions
As is often pointed out, reality has a liberal bias.
This is every bit as stupid as when you guys point to Trump's indictments as proof that there's some sort of bias working against Trump in the justice department. Perhaps you just have the causation backwards, maybe both parties are not the same when it comes to valuing the truth.
The undisputed leader of the republican party has spent the past decade calling the free press "the enemy of the American people", and you think we're supposed to be surprised to learn that journalists are overwhelmingly democrat? Again, your causation is backwards.
It's yet another extension of the same phenomenon we see playing out all throughout our society; whether we're talking about colleges and academia, journalism, science, the legal profession, etc. - pretty much every and any profession founded in education and the use of critical thinking, every one of these fields is dominated by the left. The obvious reason for this is because the left is far more in touch with and values these principals, but if you're on the right... well it must be some massive nationwide conspiracy.
The political right is fueled by delusional morons. That's the reality here.
-->
@Double_R
As is often pointed out, reality has a liberal bias.
So does corruption, fraud, waste, propaganda, and government cheese, apparently.
The reality is that the Democrat party is at 26% approval right now.
So being 100% Democrat like NPR isn't representative of any form of reality that matters.
-->
@Greyparrot
As is often pointed out, reality has a liberal bias.So does corruption, fraud, waste, propaganda, and government cheese, apparently.
It's apparent when your education about the world came from X
The reality is that the Democrat party is at 26% approval right now.
Yeah, because most on the left don't think they're doing enough to combat the absurdity and atrocity that is the Trump administration.
The democrats just won a special election in a Trump +15 district, and Trump has now pulled Elise Stefanic from her US ambassadorship appointment because he realizes he may lose that seat to a democrat despite having won it by 26 points.
You can only ignore the reality of what Trump's victory meant, which is jack shit. The pendulum is already swinging back, and it's shaping up to be one hell of a swing.
-->
@Double_R
Yeah, because most on the left don't think they're doing enough to combat the absurdity and atrocity that is the Trump administration.
OK! lets pray Tampon Tim, sets some more Tesla's on fire and hope to get enough High calorie women and Low testosterone men to change the world.
As is often pointed out, reality has a liberal bias.
I’ve seen this type of smug reply before and it isn’t exactly a great look. It’s pretty obvious that every major media outlet in America has some sort of slant, and to ignore it because most outlets are slanted in your favor is ludicrous.
At the heart of the issue, your response doesn’t seem to defend the fed giving money to media outlets… which is the ethical concern here. Like it or not, even our nation’s esteemed journalists have an incentive to report on their backers favorably… which is why government-backed media is frowned upon. It does in fact, lead to propaganda.
-->
@Double_R
Tag
-->
@Mharman
A free press implies free from government coercion and corruption. Without fear of losing funding or favor of gaining funding. Federal funding ensures a coerced and corrupt media.
That may not exactly be the enemy of the people as Trump says it, but it is certainly the enemy of the free press.
-->
@Greyparrot
Our press hasn’t been free for some time. Too much influence from our government and corporate ownership. They truly are an enemy of the people.
The result has been a rise of freelance and citizen journalists. Most of them lack ombudsmanship and professionalism, but there are a few good ones… although slanted reporting is still an issue.
If we can get a new generation of objective, honest freelance/independent journalists, who reject partisan slant, then the problem will be solved via the free market. But we’re not quite there yet.
-->
@Mharman
I think Trump will officially cut the funding soon.
-->
@Mharman
It’s pretty obvious that every major media outlet in America has some sort of slant, and to ignore it because most outlets are slanted in your favor is ludicrous.
That has nothing to do with my point. Of course every news outlet is slanted, but when nearly every outlet that actually employs journalists is slanted left, along with every fact checking organization, every major scientific organization, etc. etc. that should raise an eyebrow.
Again, there's two ways you can deal with this; you can accept that this is the case because they're more closely aligned with reality or you can claim it to be some sort of conspiratorial takeover by the left of all of society. The latter defies Occam's razor. So you can write it off as liberal smugness and disregard these facts, or you can engage in honest rational thought and attempt to construct a worldview where all of this makes sense.
At the heart of the issue, your response doesn’t seem to defend the fed giving money to media outlets… which is the ethical concern here. Like it or not, even our nation’s esteemed journalists have an incentive to report on their backers favorably… which is why government-backed media is frowned upon. It does in fact, lead to propaganda.
I didn't engage with this because that clearly wasn't what the OP was focused on. He focused instead on the fact that the journalists were all democrats, as if that in and if itself proves some kind of liberal bias, which I wouldn't even argue depending on how you're defining liberal. If support for a free press is a liberal value then of course it's true. Of course the party whose leader considers the free press the enemy of the American people will have a difficult time appealing to journalists.
But to your point, I don't take issue with what you're saying. What's ironic is that the only time it becomes an issue is when the administration decides to inject politics into an organization like this, which is exactly what Trump is doing. As long as he sees government funding as a tool to crush dissenting voices I fully support getting rid of funding for NPR because otherwise he'll just turn it into another extension of his propaganda apparatus.
-->
@Double_R
He focused instead on the fact that the journalists were all democrats, as if that in and if itself proves some kind of liberal bias, which I wouldn't even argue depending on how you're defining liberal.
If that was the only metric, we could say they are just run of the mill left leaning.
Sadly, the stories they run prove they are radicalized Democrats, not the normal ones.
What's ironic is that the only time it becomes an issue is when the administration decides to inject politics into an organization like this, which is exactly what Trump is doing.
It's hardly ironic. It's expected when the left loses a culture war so badly that the president will be obligated to remove the government soldiers of the losing side of that culture war.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's hardly ironic. It's expected when the left loses a culture war so badly that the president will be obligated to remove the government soldiers of the losing side of that culture war.
Yeah, cause small government and freedom right?
-->
@Double_R
Yep. Government doesn't need all that hired help.
-->
@Double_R
That has nothing to do with my point. Of course every news outlet is slanted, but when nearly every outlet that actually employs journalists is slanted left, along with every fact checking organization, every major scientific organization, etc. etc. that should raise an eyebrow.Again, there's two ways you can deal with this; you can accept that this is the case because they're more closely aligned with reality or you can claim it to be some sort of conspiratorial takeover by the left of all of society. The latter defies Occam's razor. So you can write it off as liberal smugness and disregard these facts, or you can engage in honest rational thought and attempt to construct a worldview where all of this makes sense.
This is just appeal to the majority combined with appeal to authority.
Also, it’s not complicated to think that political biases affect research fields. Confirmation bias is human trait and our so-called “experts” are not immune.
It doesn’t need to be a central conspiracy either- the fundamentals of human behavior would result in this, given how intolerant of competing ideologies progressivism is.
It’s also not complicated to think people in power will grift to keep their power. If you follow the money, there’s a pretty hefty incentive for our media, academia, and govt to act not in our interests, but in theirs.
Are you familiar with the concept of “the cathedral?” It explains how decentralized narrative collusion happens. You take a few power-hungry grifters have them employ social pressure and convince a few newcomers to join their side (most of whom don’t even realize the grift), they make their way into institutions and exert further pressure, and eventually reach the majority, at which point all dissidents are cast out.
Here’s a great video on it. This guy is extremely well researched. https://youtu.be/tMKrDxFUZWk
But to your point, I don't take issue with what you're saying. What's ironic is that the only time it becomes an issue is when the administration decides to inject politics into an organization like this, which is exactly what Trump is doing. As long as he sees government funding as a tool to crush dissenting voices I fully support getting rid of funding for NPR because otherwise he'll just turn it into another extension of his propaganda apparatus.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but did you just argue that he’s defunding certain agencies as part of his propaganda effort, while simultaneously arguing his defunding of them is what saved them from being a part of his propaganda effort?
He is the one getting rid of NPR funding (through Elon Musk), so I doubt he was interested in turning NPR into govt propaganda. As a matter of fact, he’s getting rid of govt propaganda, given that NPR has been subsidized by the govt until now.
As for the govt agencies, keep in mind that the departments are part of the executive branch- they serve at the president’s pleasure. Trump has every right to get people aligned with his agenda in those departments- the same way Biden did when he was president. If hiring and firing people based on the president’s vision is considered “propaganda,” then every president since their inception has been guilty.
There is a legitimate criticism of Trump that does arise here- he doesn’t go far enough in his defunding efforts. If his usage of presidential powers to influence the government is a problem to you, then it’s a good argument for the closure of at least most of the departments (and for the abolition of executive orders!) on principle.
Personally, I think Trump is being foolish in thinking he can save these departments by having them in allegiance with his agenda. There is nothing stopping the next Democrat in office from doing the same thing- hell, a new republican establishment to replace his could do the trick.
I believe that for most of these departments, our country is better off leaving things in the hands of the private sector.
OK! lets pray Tampon Tim, sets some more Tesla's on fire and hope to get enough High calorie women and Low testosterone men to change the world.
Elon Musk is working on it.
-->
@Mharman
This is just appeal to the majority combined with appeal to authority.
Correct, because that's how logic works.
The fallacy in an appeal to authority fallacy occurs when you appeal to something that is not an authority.
Appealing to a majority (aka argumentum ad populum) is a fallacy when the people from which you are appealing to have no expertise.
When neither of the above is occurring it is not only not a fallacy, it is the only rational pathway to follows.
Also, it’s not complicated to think that political biases affect research fields. Confirmation bias is human trait and our so-called “experts” are not immune.
Correct, no one is immune from personal bias, but that's what expertise cuts against. So when one expert weighs in on a subject, that's not definitive, but when a clear majority of experts agree on a given conclusion that gives very strong reason to accept the conclusion.
It’s also not complicated to think people in power will grift to keep their power. If you follow the money, there’s a pretty hefty incentive for our media, academia, and govt to act not in our interests, but in theirs.
That makes no sense at all. Media, acedemia, government... These are not people, they're institutions made up of people. So to assess the personal incentive structure you need to determine what each individual involved has to gain. What does the college professor, or the journalist, or the scientific researcher gain by lying to the public? And do you not think anyone else would gain by exposing it? There's a whole right wing media ecosystem dedicated to making all of these institutions look like a systemic fraud, do you really think they can't come up with anything better than the BS they are peddling now?
Are you familiar with the concept of “the cathedral?” It explains how decentralized narrative collusion happens. You take a few power-hungry grifters have them employ social pressure and convince a few newcomers to join their side (most of whom don’t even realize the grift), they make their way into institutions and exert further pressure, and eventually reach the majority, at which point all dissidents are cast out.
Yeah, it's called DOGE
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but did you just argue that he’s defunding certain agencies as part of his propaganda effort, while simultaneously arguing his defunding of them is what saved them from being a part of his propaganda effort?
He's defunding NPR because they report actual facts, which someone like him can't have. As horrific as that is, if the alternative is for him to install his sycophants in and turn them into a propaganda arm of his campaign then that is unfortunately preferable.
It's there something about that you need explained? Seems pretty simple to me.
As for the govt agencies, keep in mind that the departments are part of the executive branch- they serve at the president’s pleasure. Trump has every right to get people aligned with his agenda in those departments- the same way Biden did when he was president.
I really don't understand why Trump defenders always seem to think that telling us Trump "has the right" to do something qualifies as a defense when the allegation is that what he's doing is not right. Surely you can understand the difference.
If hiring and firing people based on the president’s vision is considered “propaganda,” then every president since their inception has been guilty
Propaganda has a real definition, and it's not hiring people who share the president's vision. It's about spreading lies deliberately or at the very least with a reckless disregard for the truth. Like when DOGE reports that they slashed an $8 billion dollar program that actually cost $8 million, or when they claim credit for slashing the expense for contracts when the work was already performed, or when they tell you all about how bad the gang bangers are that they deported when the only evidence they seem to have acted on are what kind of tattoos they had.
-->
@Mharman
The fallacy in an appeal to authority fallacy occurs when you appeal to something that is not an authority.
lol!
Appealing to a "real" authority is fallacious if the appeal is used in place of actual argument or evidence. Authority (assuming unbiased authority) might guide us on what’s likely or plausible, but it doesn’t prove squat by itself. Authority in itself is a subjective element that aids only circular reasoning. It is ultimately a social construct, not a truth engine. It’s like saying, “This is true because the expert says so,” and when asked why they’re an expert, we say, “Because they say true things.”