Comment by gvd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gvd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I actually think the fact that many people in the US coming from less free/developed countries is a problem (not the fact that they are here). They might come here thinking..wow this is great..this must be how it's supposed to be (together with the existing citizens who constantly hear they live in the greatest/free-est country on the planet). While when e.g. a Northern European comes here they are amazed by what kind of shit-show it sometimes is in this country.

I think it prevents real change from happening. Questioning why things are they way they are. Should some of the fundamental just be changed/replaced? What country do we want to live in? Do we want people worrying about going bankrupt because they got sick or went to school? Do we want to worry about drinking lead poisoned water? etc etc.

Sorry, I went way off topic. Trump apparently also want to defund PBS/NPR. I see a clear pattern here. None of these ideas will save substantial money and will erode democracy. Who else is going to educate the busy citizen about world events? CNN/Fox?

NPR is one of the worst propaganda outlets. It insulates it's listeners from opposing viewpoints to a degree that I think is unhealthy, I'm often in awe of the sophistication of it. When they have a opposition expert on, it's very rarely someone I consider credible. They misrepresent the viewpoint of the opposition, and it's hard to believe it's not deliberate. I watched them (along with the rest of the MSM to be fair) lead their flocks to war many times now. Like FOX, xNBC, CNN (worse than even NPR) they represent the global government faction. Each plays it's part, but it's not really different. Government should not be funding the media at all.

http://fair.org/extra/psyops-in-the-newsroom/

I disagree. Government can fund media, without you immediately thinking of Russia. Being Dutch originally, I would refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_syst...

Note that this is not a closed system where there is no private news/tv.

Also, look at DW (Deutsche Welle) and BBC. Whatever your opinion, these still provide much better information than whatever you can get in the US (well, you can actually get BBC/DW).

I would love to hear a better approach.

Money _is_ influence.

How about letting the media stand on it's own legs? Why should NPR be special? Even their name is a dishonest appeal to authority. It's not random that they have show titles like "Talk of the Nation".

As far as I know, NYT does not receive public funding, but I think this window is instructive on how the "elite" media views themselves:

http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINJUoqUwAEkSip.jpg

Fortunately most of them are going down in flames and it's only going to get better as people have access to more unfiltered information.

That's exactly why you need public media. Not everybody can afford NYT

We should fund NYT too by your logic.

No

Who gets to decide NPR should get funding and not NYT? I'll tell you, it's whoever is in power. I'm guessing you dont like Trump and the conservative wing of the Republican party, do you want him/them making that decision?

Amazons best seller list has a book about the truth deciders at the top right now.

But PBS/NPR are "public" only in the sense they are publicly funded. They aren't balanced in any way, nor do they invite public participation.

What would you consider to be the "conservative" equivalent of the following?:

- To The Contrary

- Latino USA

- Frontline (political topics)

- Democracy Now!

- Charlie Rose

- Tavis Smiley

- John Lewis - Get in the Way

Some context for the latter two photos would be helpful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com