NPR taking heat

its not govt. provided. they chip in, but just barely. most of it is listener contributions.

what news do you prefer? the kind paid by click bait page hits? paid for by pepsi and exon ads? all sources have their pros and cons.

The kind not paid for by government.
 
The kind not paid for by government.

the govt. funds a small percent of their program. ive already posted the pie chart.

you prefer news paid for by what then? exxon? insurance companies? drug companies? page hits?
 
the govt. funds a small percent of their program. ive already posted the pie chart.

you prefer news paid for by what then? exxon? insurance companies? drug companies? page hits?

Sure. If it is market viable, and I am not forced to pay for it, then great.
 
I believe we had more options for true impartiality before most of the MSM sources started to fall under the umbrella of just a couple of companies.
 
not concerned that you'll be getting the news that they paid for, rather than the news?

The market can drive a number of different options, a few of which I might find acceptable. And the ones I don't like I am not getting taxed for. Not quite sure why this is so difficult to understand.
 
The market can drive a number of different options, a few of which I might find acceptable. And the ones I don't like I am not getting taxed for. Not quite sure why this is so difficult to understand.

i guess im dumb
 
Left eats Left
So Full
Salty
Negative. This is a group that's federally funded and mandated to be agnostic. Lefties see NPR as their own since fact and truth has a definitive liberal bias but they're mistaken in their assumption that being agnostic also means NPR should actively call out and go after Trumps claims. They should note the fallacies and report them but not make it a political matter.
 
We're also building a SherdogWR mediabias chart
97b6648793779ed1cd75008abbe09d8d.png

Fight Fake News, know who is reputable, is trending again, with graphic
 
I believe we had more options for true impartiality before most of the MSM sources started to fall under the umbrella of just a couple of companies.

i think it has more to do with the 24/7 programming.

instead of being on the air and saying what happened, theyre now compelled to also entertain. if they don't do this, then they cant stay on the air and make more money.
 
If NPR slipped on ice I'd stomp on their knees.

How anyone can listen to that insipid crap is beyond me.
 
can you be more specific about what you dont like with it?
I haven't listened in ten years due to the silly stupid stories, the mealy mouthed approach to real topics, the safe non offensive approach that belittles any honest perspective.... all their programming is for safe middle class idealists driving to their cushy corporate job in their Volvo with seat warmers (not bashing seat warmers I like them too) trying to feel good about a world that is massively fucked while drinking a double mocha latte and over enjoying a snicker doodle.
 
I haven't listened in ten years due to the silly stupid stories, the mealy mouthed approach to real topics, the safe non offensive approach that belittles any honest perspective.... all their programming is for safe middle class idealists driving to their cushy corporate job in their Volvo with seat warmers (not bashing seat warmers I like them too) trying to feel good about a world that is massively fucked while drinking a double mocha latte and over enjoying a snicker doodle.

its journalism

they tell you what happened, and leave the interpretation to you.

you dont like journalism. you like badass punditry and shit talking. i get it.
 
its journalism

they tell you what happened, and leave the interpretation to you.

you dont like journalism. you like badass punditry and shit talking. i get it.
You are fairly assumptious for someone acting so smart.

NPR is superficial. Check out Chuck Mertz for my style of format for information.
 
Back
Top