Trump’s Team Said to Be Planning to Privatize Public Broadcasting

If public radio and TV hadn't become so militant left, I would be adamantly opposed to privatization.

 

Good point. If they have a commercially viable show, they'll survive. If not, they should go under like Air America.

 

I agree. NASA costs the taxpayer about $18 billion a year, and we got a skateboard on mars for our money.

 

There are alternative facts. LMAO. You guys kill me with this bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

That's my skateboard.

 

I was under the impression that all TV networks in the USA were private.

In the UK we have the BBC, which is entirely taxpayer-funded and available for viewing for a c.$150 annual license fee. Is there something similar in the US?

 

Don't be fooled by the new Socialist in Chief. He'll do what Reagan did: change a few things here and there, make some good sounding conservative speechs and run big bureaucratic government business as usual.

 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which includes both PBS television and National Public Radio, are funded by taxpayers and individual donors.

Here in the U.S., you don't have to pay for television that is broadcast over the air, which includes ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, but you have to pay to subscribe to cable and satellite TV. It's not the same as what you have in Britain with the Beeb.

 

And your echo chamber is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) but to each his own.

 

What echo chamber? the MSM? I don't read or listen to the MSM, but I find it highly suspicious for the Trump Administration to be acting so defensively about the stupid inauguration numbers. Sending that worthless sack of (*)(*)(*)(*) Kellyanne Conway out with her "alternative facts" line, simply Orwelian double speak.

What a joke, a shameful joke, this administration is. Trump needs to axe these idiots before they send it truly into the abyss.

 

Thanks for this. I had a vague idea that the likes of ABC had greater accessibility than the cable networks, but I didn't realise they were actually publicly funded. Do they not have the need for impartiality written into their contracts?

The BBC gets a bit of stick for its leftist slant, but it doesn't seem anything in comparison to the unabashed impartiality of these networks in the US. They should be either impartial or private - I can't imagine why Trump would consider not de-funding them, to say nothing of pulling the Whitehouse press corps. Seems like a lot of money and space is being wasted.

 

While responding to internet hyperbolic trollery probably only serves to feed it, Conway was probably the single biggest reason why Trump won. She was a prized asset. To say she is "worthless" is other universe Territory.

 

The MSM is a joke, completely full of propaganda and no honest, actual journalism. Truth means nothing to the MSM anymore. So it should be no surprise they are at odds with a president now who cannot stand them...just like the vast majority of society.

Liberals are so hypocritical however that despite how they also, for hte most part, dislike the MSM they only defend the MSM against Trump.

 

You're right - ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS have greater access to the public, and all of their news departments are skewed Left - but PBS is the only network that is publicly funded.

No, they do not. All that is required of them is an obligation on the part of their local affiliates to broadcast public service messages, such as weather alerts during severe storms.

I agree - the news departments at public TV and radio should be impartial, and since they're not impartial the networks should be defunded. The good news for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is that it has an established fundraising network that would help keep it on the air through private donations. It also has the ability to raise revenue through merchandise, such as DVDs of its programs. In fact, I just bought a DVD of one of their travel shows that features aerial footage of landmarks throughout Germany and Austria. Personally, I see no reason why the CPB couldn't survive if it added commercial revenue to its existing revenue sources.

 

Big Bird is big enough to support himself I'm sure Disney, Nickelodeon, or other entertainment corporations would spend millions to have the rights to Sesame Street

 

no facts are facts they don't slant either way what does make facts slanted is the facts you do provide and the facts you don't
these liberal broadcasters like NPR and PBS does is they only give the facts that are favorable to the left and omit any facts that isn't it is calling lying by omission

 

She's also the first woman who ran a successful presidential campaign here in the States.

If she was a Democrat we wouldn't hear the end of this historic achievement, but since she's a Republican "progressive" haters gotta hate.

 

The inauguration numbers were lower for Trump then Obama by sheer visual imagery.

Big.

Deal.

What is concerning to me, personally, is that the Trump administration is acting like someone (*)(*)(*)(*) in their corn flakes.

How are these idiots going to handle exterior criticism? With bullets and bombs? This proves one thing; that this administration is entirely too thin skinned to handle any type of criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

Conway is a con-artist. I am surprised that hideous pile of steaming offal can sleep at night with the lies and falsehoods she compartmentalizes. Not to mention her condescending and snide tone; she is a horrible, grotesque woman, a shining example for all people on how NOT to be in your life.

Sickening demagogue.

- - - Updated - - -

For me she is in the same bag as Hillary and Michelle O - lying, sleazy, grotesque charlatans pitching snake oil sales.

Sickening that these people do this sort of thing. Alternative facts, just as bad as Hillary's lies on the stupid Clinton Foundation, just as bad as Michelle O's false promises on "Healthy student lunches" funded by the likes of General Mills and other hacks for the sugar lobby.

 

When criticism is not in any way shape or form constructive, they should handle it with aggressive words and call them out. Bombs and bullets? Obviously not, but they should absolutely call the MSM and liberals out on their bull(*)(*)(*)(*), which they are doing quite well. Yea its a culture shock to see politicians so outward spoken but for many of us it is a welcome change. Long gone are the days where liberals can do and say whatever they want, bully people by playing race cards and portraying their hatred, pushing objectively false narratives, like the BLM "police are so mean to us" bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and not being called on it.

What type of benefit is their in saying "hahaha my president had a bigger inauguration"? There isn't. It's ironically, very childish...and coming from those who seem to want to call Trump on his. There will be undoubtedly more of this to come, and I am happy for it. The MSM needs to get their heads out of their asses and actually take up honest journalism, drop their biases, and care about truth.

 

I don't give a damn what independent journalists do.

The administration is acting like a bunch of whiney (*)(*)(*)(*)s, and it needs to be stopped. There is something to be said for holding people accountable, but doing it APPROPRIATELY is something entirely different. Sending Spicer out to lie to the public and rant like a lunatic makes the right look like a bunch of idiots.

To double down those lies with more lies by Kellyanne Skidmark Conway is even worse.

 

I listen to NPR every morning as well. They present all sides to an issue. They allow members from both parties to participate in a discussion.
Thinking they are biased, is embarrassing.

Do you really think they'd go total bias? They know full well the R's have as much say in their funding as the D's. It just seems like the some R's melt like snowflakes to the truth.

 

Truth? Don't you mean... alternative facts?

 

Like Hillary is going to win in a landslide, that sort of liberal truth in broadcasting? You folks are funny...

 

Its about TONE. Presenting all sides is one thing. How much you show one side over another and who you use as the representative is something entirely different. But if you cant see how the sides are presented in a slanted way, sorry, no hope for you. They continuously showed Trump in a negative light and Hillary in a positive light during the election. Not even debateable. For example, the anarchists destroying property were connected with TRUMP, not Democrats. Its all in the wording. When they reported on Madonna, "BRIEFLY", they didn't mention the crowd cheering at the mention of using violence. That's called tone.

 

Every day since the election, I feel like its Christmas day and I have a wonderful new present to open.