Bob Ross Inc are not good people. They stole those paintings from his estate to make a buck. (More specifically, they ruthlessly commandeered his image after he died so they could keep making a fortune.)
I’m a big fan of NPR and the quality of their journalism.
But it’s always struck me as odd that their frequent pledge drives suggest the ads they run don’t actually cover their costs.
In effect, each 30-second pledge driver must generate more revenue than a 30-second sponsor ad — which seems like a flaw in their revenue model, where donations are more valuable per minute than their core revenue generating business model.
It's brand advertising itself, precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.' NPR has navigated trust far better than average for the media. A quick search shows some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large.
When media runs non-stop pharmaceutical ads you obviously question their motivation when reporting on pharmaceutical adjacent topics, which are almost invariably neutral to positive. Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding, but if you saw an equivalent amount of annual advertising from the Waltons on NPR, you'd certainly be looking at those articles from a different perspective than somebody who's unaware of said funding.
It's interesting that this is the label you give for that behavior. A more optimistic take is this is just journalistic ethics. I guess it all depends on how much you trust NPR, but like you said "some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large". The nature of your description suggests you might be in the 46% and almost certainly in that 72%.
I agree. When I listen to NPR, I don’t ever get the feeling that they’re trying to sell me something from Walmart, prop up Walmart’s stock, get the Walton family out of a bind, or chase some special interest specific to their family.
NPR, PBS, PRI, unaffiliated local stations, media not owned by large companies, etc. may not push conservative talking points, but they offer a sometimes differ point of view that is interesting or worth exploring. How terrible is that?
When I listen to NPR, I know what their angle will be regarding almost every topic that comes up. I used to listen to them frequently, but they're too ideological, something that people that agree with them often fail to see.
There used to be more nuance 30 years ago, the discussions smarter. It's now boring because it's predictable.
I disagree with you but damn I don't get the downvotes. Every news org has an angle, and that angle often (but not always) follows revenue. I like to believe that NPR's angle follows the revenue they generate from their listeners. All that said, I don't listen to them either and only occasionally read the site. The best public radio news comes from the local reporters anyway.
I didn't downvote, but if I did downvote, I might do it because: middle ground is a fallacy. Or, rather, middle ground being more correct than extremes is a fallacy.
The idea that, on every issue, there are two extremes and the "right" answer is somewhere in the middle is just sort of made up. It makes a lot of sense, though.
If I say China is 1 mile away from the US and you say it's 1 billion miles away, then the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. It makes sense. Except, the middle is not constant. The middle is constantly moving. What was middle 10 years ago is no longer so. What was middle in Confucius' time is no longer so.
If you take a look at history, you'll notice the people in the middle are almost always wrong. The 3/5ths compromise is the perfect example of this middle ground fallacy. Well... that turned out to be wrong, very wrong.
It's possible NPR hasn't changed their positioning at all, but rather, the window has shifted and now what was previously middling is now "extreme". But they could have been right all along. It happens sometimes. There were people around during the 3/5ths compromise who wanted no slavery at all. They were right!
PBS doesn't do any talking points. It's honestly just news and if they have a talking head on, they usually have an opposing talking head. Its a breath of fresh air to just get the actual news.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion [...]
Among the top results in your link are: "Pasta meals from Trader Joe's and Walmart may be linked to a deadly listeria outbreak", "Walmart recalls frozen shrimp over potential radioactive contamination", and "A man accused of stabbing 11 people at a Walmart is in Michigan authorities' custody".
I think that’s every just about every news station that’s trying to actually publish news and not full-time pushing some political talking points?
Think about how many Walmarts there are and the representation of people going to Walmart (hint: mostly the bottom 99% of wealth), what concerns they would have, what trouble they would get into. Do you think the Walton family is also the culprit in all crime or world news that is reported? They must be really busy controlling the world if so.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
Their finances are publicly available. [1] Like always in these things it's somewhat obfuscated, but it's likely that viewer contributions are part of the "Contributions of cash and other financial assets" line which was about $40 million. By contrast their revenue from "corporate sponsorships" is $101 million.
In general I don't think impartial centralized media/reporting is possible in the modern era where any source of influence becomes immediately targeted by countless moneyed interests. And it's not like a comic book thing where some guy with slicked hair comes in, drops off a few bags of money and a list of talking points. Rather it's probably more akin to politics where extremely charismatic smooth talkers come in, present their heavily polished point of view, treat you like a king, and then leave a few bags of money on their way out as a no-strings-attached charitable donation to do with as you see fit.
For a slight tangent, I remember when AOC first took office, quite doe eyed, she posted: "Our “bipartisan” Congressional orientation is cohosted by a corporate lobbyist group. Other members have quietly expressed to me their concern that this wasn’t told to us in advance. Lobbyists are here. Goldman Sachs is here. Where‘s labor? Activists? Frontline community leaders?" [2] Those sort of critiques, which I was extremely impressed by at first, somehow disappeared pretty quickly from her. In lieu of that she started doing things like showing up at the $35,000/ticket Meta Gala with a gown emblazoned with "Tax the rich" worth thousands of dollars. I'm positive that in her mind she's still the exact same grass roots outsider fighting against a corrupt system.
Humans are very good at cognitive dissonance and it really ruins any centralized system.
But contributions don't go to npr they go to the individual member stations? They then buy some of their programming from NPR and supplement that with local stuff.
I could see how NPR at the National level would do the big stuff with corporate sponsorships.
donations from viewers don't come with strings attached, where as advertisers want content that is conducive to the agendas of the advertisers (which generally is something that enables their bottom line, more or less).
That is why donations are better, even if it makes less direct cash.
As corporate media demonstrates, depending on ads and therefore, corporations, inevitably leads to compromises in your news coverage. NPR has tried to avoid this.
Of course. GP's suggestion was that, because they're not pandering to corporate interests, there are fewer compromises in their news coverage. Which isn't necessarily true since they're just pandering to a different audience.
“Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering”
Is this statement opinion or backed by data?
Either way, I’m not sure you understand the purpose of a free press. A free press gives all audiences an opportunity to find contrarian viewpoints in the media. That’s it. There’s nothing else because that’s all that’s possible.
There’s not some perfect state that exists where all media outlets (Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones) are perfectly neutral.
This is why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are so important.
That's all interesting, but it doesn't really address the point that NPR's coverage is biased by a desire to please its audience. Even though tautologically true for all organizations, it is disingenuous to suggest (as GP is doing) that NPR gets to don a mantle of impartiality because they don't run (some) ads to finance their operation. Despite how hard "NPR has tried to avoid this".
So, sure, pick your favorite partisan news source. But don't try to claim that it's unbiased because it doesn't generate revenue with ads.
What NPR affiliate station you listen to? WNYC runs a quarterly week-long pledge drive. The rest of the time you might hear a “funded by listeners like you” drop, but nothing like the regular cadence of commercial radio. The minute measure is not over the same period.
I work for a local public radio station under NPR. First the funny part: public media stations are adamant that those aren't "ads" but are "sponsorships", as advertising would break their mission of being a non-commercial entity free from commercial influence. They get pretty granular with their rules in this regard. For instance you probably won't hear mention of pricing or subscription models in the messages because that crosses a line.
As a result we don't charge much for sponsorships. We still make money off of them, but it's small compared to what we receive from donors. IOW that flaw is our greatest strength: we aren't answerable to advertisers and only to our listeners.
Getting on my soapbox, when you see deals like ABC and Paramount licking Trump's boots, it's because they are deeply, deeply invested in those commercial interests. Many of those extend beyond advertising to trying to please the state and get merger approvals from the FCC, but in the end, for those guys it all comes down to revenue. That's important to keep in mind when you're looking at what they think is important to show you.
We're not perfect that's for sure, but we at least don't have to pander to advertisers.
Wonderful Bob Ross. For me, he is more than a painter. Probably a psychic therapist too. I use his videos as soothing sessions when I'm feeling low. And the way he creates complex imagery with simple brush pressings and sweeps, is beyond words.
PBS kids shows teach (sometimes via a heavy hand, I'll admit) things like acceptance of people of different skin colors and ability levels. There's a show featuring Inuits called Molly of Denali, not McKinley. Some of the characters are even LGB (not trans as far as I've seen). Sadly in the current world these concepts are considered 'political'.
That "heavy hand" is precisely what makes things controversial or political. For instance Star Trek has pretty much always been 'woke.' My favorite series is Deep Space 9. The captain is black, the second in command (as well as the chief science officer) is a woman, the chief medical officer is Mideastern, and so on. And there were countless episodes that hit on all typical social justice themes, yet somehow these things were presented so 'naturally' that it all just felt very 'appropriate', for lack of a better term.
By contrast I was completely unable to watch things like Star Trek: Discovery (them choosing a title that would be acronymed as STD is already weird) because the identity politics were force fed so hard, to say nothing of 'Mary Sue'ism. It felt very unnatural and like a thinly veiled political rant. Back to PBS, Bert and Ernie - gay? I mean very possibly, if not likely. The creators say no, but they'd probably say no even if the answer was yes. And it's fine. It's introduced in a way that feels very natural, but when you suddenly start making such things overt, and one whose answer must be discussed and force-fed, it starts feeling much more like a political statement than just an inclusive context.
I'll certainly be letting my children watch old Sesame Street et al, but I think we'll be turning to things like Masha and the Bear for contemporary programming.
You hit the nail on the head. The issue is not writers wanting to tell stories that get people thinking about ethics and politics; the issue is that the writers can't restrain themselves from turning the show into a preachy, obnoxious mess. Older Trek series weren't perfect in this regard (to your point, DS9 had a couple of episodes where the writers very clearly took a side and were preaching at the audience), but mostly they were skilled enough to use a light touch and let the audience draw their own conclusions. The same is unfortunately not true for the writers currently in charge of Star Trek (or a lot of shows for that matter).
I don't watch the newer Star Treks so I can't connect with you there.
I should have been clearer in my post: PBS shows treat everything in a heavy handed way. Daniel Tiger will explain the main theme of the episode, have characters burst into song repeating that theme over and over again, and then repeat the theme again at the end. It's a long ways from Mr Roger, who seemed to treat kids like little adults. To be honest it's not my cup of tea. But I wouldn't call it the least bit political, just bad writing and/or best practices depending on who you talk to.
I'm completely with you on this. I think a lot has to do with Alex Kurtzman. He has that particular opinionated way and he needs to inject it in everything he touches, very "Hollywood safe and committee approved"
The earlier Star Treks went AGAINST the norm. Not the 'current' trend. There's a huge difference and as you say, it feels as if they see the viewer as stupid and unable to read between the lines.
I think you’re being unfair on Discovery in attacking its “identity politics” as being more intense than earlier Treks. I say this because Discovery intensifies EVERYTHING it does over earlier Star Treks. The visuals are more cinematic, the sets are much, much larger, the pace is faster, the costumes more detailed, the cheesiness is cheesier, the “science” is wilder, the tension is …. er… more tense. I think singling out Discovery’s heavy-handed wokeness as a sign they’re outting too much emphasis there ignores the fact that the entire show is more heavy-handed than previous Treks.
I know the reactor will explode in seconds causing a chain reaction that will echo back in time erasing the entire universe from existence, but I just have to stop for a minute or three to express my feelings and deliver a monologue about my motivations and info dump this hastily assembled backstory in case I need to nobly sacrifice myself for the greater good, while you just look on gormlessly nodding as the body count climbs. Everything might be turned up to 11, but the eye rollingly forced emotional bullshit managed to overshadow it all. I would have preferred the Seasame Street script writers to have written it.
Have you watched PBS in a while? It's easily one of the most left leaning channels out there. Sure, there are a few programs, many in the past, that might have been mostly neutral but that's certainly not the case today.
PBS has always been political, it's just the unfortunate reality that conservatives are upset over the past 80 or so years of progress and want a 'great reset' to try and reorganize things to benefit them. When the very notion of empathy is deemed to be woke, it's unfortunately no surprise that they would target PBS immediately.
Mr. Rogers frequently pushed the envelope in terms of welcoming Black individuals during a period where segregation was still very publicly affecting people even after the civil rights act. We look back on these episodes and don't see anything radical, but at the time they were very much so.
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
People often equate "Public" with meaning "middle-center" or "apolitical". Many would claim National Public Radio (NPR) is middle-center, politically-speaking.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
Bob Ross died 30 years ago, and Mr. Roger’s died over 20 years ago. Basing your argument on decades old examples is a pretty clear indicator of its merits.
Wouldn't it be better to let those towers go dark, and await the public outcry, instead of temporarily hiding the effects?
The PBS affiliate stations in most need of federal funding are typically in rural, largely Republican areas. Let their own base tell the party they're not happy about being cut-off from their baseball documentaries and all the educational shows their kids watch.
Someone close to the administration could reopen them "in the interest of national security" or some such rubbish, isn't Larry's son in the media game?
PragerU shorts injected directly in to Sesame Street wasn't on my 2025 bingo card but its not the wildest thing I've seen out of the US this year.
Those republicans have cheered on their local news being literally mouthpieces for a global company: Sinclair Broadcasting
Those republicans left Fox News when they were forced to admit that they lied, and instead tuned into "media" that kept insisting that the 2020 election was "stolen"
Those same people are cheering on an administration that erases American history because it is uncomfortable and cheer on a President who lies when his mouth is open.
Thinking they will suddenly come to their senses is just delusional.
>all the educational shows their kids watch.
They don't let their kids watch educational shows. They buy documentaries from religious fundamentalist groups and force their children to watch shows about how the scientists lie to them for satan. They take their kids to organizations run by the Discovery Institute, including exhibits about how dinosaurs are a lie perpetrated by science.
These people have been purposely nurturing an anti-science cult for decades. They have an entire "alternative" media infrastructure set up. PragerU is just a minuscule part of it.
> Thinking they will suddenly come to their senses is just delusional.
Abstract proclamations don't affect people. Taking something away from them, affects them. That's when the rubber hits the road. That's when the public starts turning on the politicians. Even the strictest party-line voters don't support EVERYTHING (or even most of what) the party says and does.
> They don't let their kids watch educational shows.
> They have an entire "alternative" media infrastructure set up.
"PBS has also reported a diverse ideological split among its consumers [...] 26% who self-identify as Republicans and 37% who say they are independents."
"Among those that voted for President Trump, PBS/public television has a much higher positive image rating (60%) than the traditional broadcast networks (37%), cable TV networks (41%) and newspapers (24%)."
"66% who voted for President Trump favor increasing or maintaining federal funding for public TV"
>continues to support the very medium that brought his joy and creativity into American homes
The message is more important than the medium. With the advent of the internet and platforms like YouTube it's easier than ever to get your video, your message, into the homes of America.
Sure, but PBS member stations also function as incubators, in addition to providing a platform. They provide (along with underwriting from 3rd party charitable institutions) artists/intellectuals/entertainers the upfront capital to produce their programming. YouTube isn't going to provide anyone with money upfront to make a show unless they already have a massive following. Mr. Rogers Neighborhood wouldn't exist if WQED hadn't taken a chance on a couple of 20 something's letting them produce Children's Corner in 1958.
It's certainly possible that's less necessary nowadays, given how cheap filming and creating video content is nowadays, but it's worth considering.
Youtube has incubated many multiples the number of creators than PBS member stations despite not providing upfront funding. Most creators don't start out from corporations or business loans.
If it was properly funded? Quite possibly. If it had the same funding as Youtube's ad revenue then I think you'd have all those, but maybe a lot less of PewPewDie and Dude Perfect.
Imagine YouTube but publicly funded. No horrible AI targetted ads without any restraint. No monopolistic control over half the worlds viewing devices to control what's installed.
When the way of consuming the medium changes, the message it carries changes as well. The reason public broadcasting is so well loved and "special" is that it was something collective (out of necessity). If I don't like charcircuit, I can find a youtube video declaring charcircuit a dangerous enemy combatant. When you are the only game in town, there was a sense of making it somewhat "casual" and we got things like bob ross and mr. rogers neighbourhood.
If pbs was only balanced or apolitical. There were several high profile blunders they refused to apologize or change. Would have been the same outcome if things were reversed. Heck, they could have done a pbs right and pbs left channel. But they know better. Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
> Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
As the country rapidly descends into a right wing totalitarian state, it's great that you identified the real culprit: people who complained our country was descending into a right wing totalitarian state.
Ah, yes, you must be comparing NPR to all of the fair and balanced “clear eyed” right wing media we’ve come to know and love. No extremism or bias there whatsoever… /s
Bob Ross Inc are not good people. They stole those paintings from his estate to make a buck. (More specifically, they ruthlessly commandeered his image after he died so they could keep making a fortune.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20250121153258/https://www.theda...
I’m a big fan of NPR and the quality of their journalism.
But it’s always struck me as odd that their frequent pledge drives suggest the ads they run don’t actually cover their costs.
In effect, each 30-second pledge driver must generate more revenue than a 30-second sponsor ad — which seems like a flaw in their revenue model, where donations are more valuable per minute than their core revenue generating business model.
It's brand advertising itself, precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.' NPR has navigated trust far better than average for the media. A quick search shows some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large.
When media runs non-stop pharmaceutical ads you obviously question their motivation when reporting on pharmaceutical adjacent topics, which are almost invariably neutral to positive. Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding, but if you saw an equivalent amount of annual advertising from the Waltons on NPR, you'd certainly be looking at those articles from a different perspective than somebody who's unaware of said funding.
[1] - https://www.npr.org/search/?query=walmart&page=1
>It's brand advertising itself...
It's interesting that this is the label you give for that behavior. A more optimistic take is this is just journalistic ethics. I guess it all depends on how much you trust NPR, but like you said "some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large". The nature of your description suggests you might be in the 46% and almost certainly in that 72%.
I agree. When I listen to NPR, I don’t ever get the feeling that they’re trying to sell me something from Walmart, prop up Walmart’s stock, get the Walton family out of a bind, or chase some special interest specific to their family.
NPR, PBS, PRI, unaffiliated local stations, media not owned by large companies, etc. may not push conservative talking points, but they offer a sometimes differ point of view that is interesting or worth exploring. How terrible is that?
When I listen to NPR, I know what their angle will be regarding almost every topic that comes up. I used to listen to them frequently, but they're too ideological, something that people that agree with them often fail to see. There used to be more nuance 30 years ago, the discussions smarter. It's now boring because it's predictable.
I disagree with you but damn I don't get the downvotes. Every news org has an angle, and that angle often (but not always) follows revenue. I like to believe that NPR's angle follows the revenue they generate from their listeners. All that said, I don't listen to them either and only occasionally read the site. The best public radio news comes from the local reporters anyway.
I didn't downvote, but if I did downvote, I might do it because: middle ground is a fallacy. Or, rather, middle ground being more correct than extremes is a fallacy.
The idea that, on every issue, there are two extremes and the "right" answer is somewhere in the middle is just sort of made up. It makes a lot of sense, though.
If I say China is 1 mile away from the US and you say it's 1 billion miles away, then the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. It makes sense. Except, the middle is not constant. The middle is constantly moving. What was middle 10 years ago is no longer so. What was middle in Confucius' time is no longer so.
If you take a look at history, you'll notice the people in the middle are almost always wrong. The 3/5ths compromise is the perfect example of this middle ground fallacy. Well... that turned out to be wrong, very wrong.
It's possible NPR hasn't changed their positioning at all, but rather, the window has shifted and now what was previously middling is now "extreme". But they could have been right all along. It happens sometimes. There were people around during the 3/5ths compromise who wanted no slavery at all. They were right!
Then the honest, fair option is to not fund NPR. And not Fox or anyone else using taxpayer money.
PBS doesn't do any talking points. It's honestly just news and if they have a talking head on, they usually have an opposing talking head. Its a breath of fresh air to just get the actual news.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion [...] Among the top results in your link are: "Pasta meals from Trader Joe's and Walmart may be linked to a deadly listeria outbreak", "Walmart recalls frozen shrimp over potential radioactive contamination", and "A man accused of stabbing 11 people at a Walmart is in Michigan authorities' custody".
I think that’s every just about every news station that’s trying to actually publish news and not full-time pushing some political talking points?
Think about how many Walmarts there are and the representation of people going to Walmart (hint: mostly the bottom 99% of wealth), what concerns they would have, what trouble they would get into. Do you think the Walton family is also the culprit in all crime or world news that is reported? They must be really busy controlling the world if so.
To be fair, that is neutral to positive coverage of Walmart.
The actual truth is much worse.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
Doesn't
> And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding
Contradict
> precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.'
Here you have one of the biggest companies in the country and one of the richest families and while they do donate they are still only a sliver?
Isn't that what we would want, or are there better models you can suggest?
Their finances are publicly available. [1] Like always in these things it's somewhat obfuscated, but it's likely that viewer contributions are part of the "Contributions of cash and other financial assets" line which was about $40 million. By contrast their revenue from "corporate sponsorships" is $101 million.
In general I don't think impartial centralized media/reporting is possible in the modern era where any source of influence becomes immediately targeted by countless moneyed interests. And it's not like a comic book thing where some guy with slicked hair comes in, drops off a few bags of money and a list of talking points. Rather it's probably more akin to politics where extremely charismatic smooth talkers come in, present their heavily polished point of view, treat you like a king, and then leave a few bags of money on their way out as a no-strings-attached charitable donation to do with as you see fit.
For a slight tangent, I remember when AOC first took office, quite doe eyed, she posted: "Our “bipartisan” Congressional orientation is cohosted by a corporate lobbyist group. Other members have quietly expressed to me their concern that this wasn’t told to us in advance. Lobbyists are here. Goldman Sachs is here. Where‘s labor? Activists? Frontline community leaders?" [2] Those sort of critiques, which I was extremely impressed by at first, somehow disappeared pretty quickly from her. In lieu of that she started doing things like showing up at the $35,000/ticket Meta Gala with a gown emblazoned with "Tax the rich" worth thousands of dollars. I'm positive that in her mind she's still the exact same grass roots outsider fighting against a corrupt system.
Humans are very good at cognitive dissonance and it really ruins any centralized system.
[1] - https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2024/Nati...
[2] - https://x.com/AOC/status/1070764827533078529
But contributions don't go to npr they go to the individual member stations? They then buy some of their programming from NPR and supplement that with local stuff.
I could see how NPR at the National level would do the big stuff with corporate sponsorships.
donations from viewers don't come with strings attached, where as advertisers want content that is conducive to the agendas of the advertisers (which generally is something that enables their bottom line, more or less).
That is why donations are better, even if it makes less direct cash.
As corporate media demonstrates, depending on ads and therefore, corporations, inevitably leads to compromises in your news coverage. NPR has tried to avoid this.
Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering to the preferences of their audience.
Ummm whose preferences are they supposed to be pandering to?
"I like to believe that NPR's angle follows the revenue they generate from their listeners."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45516661
Right -- so pandering to their listeners is OK then?
Of course. GP's suggestion was that, because they're not pandering to corporate interests, there are fewer compromises in their news coverage. Which isn't necessarily true since they're just pandering to a different audience.
My God I had that so wrong. Thanks for clarifying.
“Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering”
Is this statement opinion or backed by data?
Either way, I’m not sure you understand the purpose of a free press. A free press gives all audiences an opportunity to find contrarian viewpoints in the media. That’s it. There’s nothing else because that’s all that’s possible.
There’s not some perfect state that exists where all media outlets (Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones) are perfectly neutral.
This is why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are so important.
It's obvious, my opinion, and backed by data.
That's all interesting, but it doesn't really address the point that NPR's coverage is biased by a desire to please its audience. Even though tautologically true for all organizations, it is disingenuous to suggest (as GP is doing) that NPR gets to don a mantle of impartiality because they don't run (some) ads to finance their operation. Despite how hard "NPR has tried to avoid this".
So, sure, pick your favorite partisan news source. But don't try to claim that it's unbiased because it doesn't generate revenue with ads.
> “valuable per minute”
What NPR affiliate station you listen to? WNYC runs a quarterly week-long pledge drive. The rest of the time you might hear a “funded by listeners like you” drop, but nothing like the regular cadence of commercial radio. The minute measure is not over the same period.
I work for a local public radio station under NPR. First the funny part: public media stations are adamant that those aren't "ads" but are "sponsorships", as advertising would break their mission of being a non-commercial entity free from commercial influence. They get pretty granular with their rules in this regard. For instance you probably won't hear mention of pricing or subscription models in the messages because that crosses a line.
As a result we don't charge much for sponsorships. We still make money off of them, but it's small compared to what we receive from donors. IOW that flaw is our greatest strength: we aren't answerable to advertisers and only to our listeners.
Getting on my soapbox, when you see deals like ABC and Paramount licking Trump's boots, it's because they are deeply, deeply invested in those commercial interests. Many of those extend beyond advertising to trying to please the state and get merger approvals from the FCC, but in the end, for those guys it all comes down to revenue. That's important to keep in mind when you're looking at what they think is important to show you.
We're not perfect that's for sure, but we at least don't have to pander to advertisers.
Related:
It’s nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44284723 - June 2025 (161 comments)
It’s nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27014367 - May 2021 (85 comments)
Wonderful Bob Ross. For me, he is more than a painter. Probably a psychic therapist too. I use his videos as soothing sessions when I'm feeling low. And the way he creates complex imagery with simple brush pressings and sweeps, is beyond words.
At this point, is there remotely any public money coming into NPR? Is it time for a rename?
[flagged]
[flagged]
PBS kids shows teach (sometimes via a heavy hand, I'll admit) things like acceptance of people of different skin colors and ability levels. There's a show featuring Inuits called Molly of Denali, not McKinley. Some of the characters are even LGB (not trans as far as I've seen). Sadly in the current world these concepts are considered 'political'.
That "heavy hand" is precisely what makes things controversial or political. For instance Star Trek has pretty much always been 'woke.' My favorite series is Deep Space 9. The captain is black, the second in command (as well as the chief science officer) is a woman, the chief medical officer is Mideastern, and so on. And there were countless episodes that hit on all typical social justice themes, yet somehow these things were presented so 'naturally' that it all just felt very 'appropriate', for lack of a better term.
By contrast I was completely unable to watch things like Star Trek: Discovery (them choosing a title that would be acronymed as STD is already weird) because the identity politics were force fed so hard, to say nothing of 'Mary Sue'ism. It felt very unnatural and like a thinly veiled political rant. Back to PBS, Bert and Ernie - gay? I mean very possibly, if not likely. The creators say no, but they'd probably say no even if the answer was yes. And it's fine. It's introduced in a way that feels very natural, but when you suddenly start making such things overt, and one whose answer must be discussed and force-fed, it starts feeling much more like a political statement than just an inclusive context.
I'll certainly be letting my children watch old Sesame Street et al, but I think we'll be turning to things like Masha and the Bear for contemporary programming.
You hit the nail on the head. The issue is not writers wanting to tell stories that get people thinking about ethics and politics; the issue is that the writers can't restrain themselves from turning the show into a preachy, obnoxious mess. Older Trek series weren't perfect in this regard (to your point, DS9 had a couple of episodes where the writers very clearly took a side and were preaching at the audience), but mostly they were skilled enough to use a light touch and let the audience draw their own conclusions. The same is unfortunately not true for the writers currently in charge of Star Trek (or a lot of shows for that matter).
I don't watch the newer Star Treks so I can't connect with you there.
I should have been clearer in my post: PBS shows treat everything in a heavy handed way. Daniel Tiger will explain the main theme of the episode, have characters burst into song repeating that theme over and over again, and then repeat the theme again at the end. It's a long ways from Mr Roger, who seemed to treat kids like little adults. To be honest it's not my cup of tea. But I wouldn't call it the least bit political, just bad writing and/or best practices depending on who you talk to.
I'm completely with you on this. I think a lot has to do with Alex Kurtzman. He has that particular opinionated way and he needs to inject it in everything he touches, very "Hollywood safe and committee approved"
The earlier Star Treks went AGAINST the norm. Not the 'current' trend. There's a huge difference and as you say, it feels as if they see the viewer as stupid and unable to read between the lines.
I think you’re being unfair on Discovery in attacking its “identity politics” as being more intense than earlier Treks. I say this because Discovery intensifies EVERYTHING it does over earlier Star Treks. The visuals are more cinematic, the sets are much, much larger, the pace is faster, the costumes more detailed, the cheesiness is cheesier, the “science” is wilder, the tension is …. er… more tense. I think singling out Discovery’s heavy-handed wokeness as a sign they’re outting too much emphasis there ignores the fact that the entire show is more heavy-handed than previous Treks.
Well, if that's the thing that makes them not like watching it, it's worth pointing out specifically.
I know the reactor will explode in seconds causing a chain reaction that will echo back in time erasing the entire universe from existence, but I just have to stop for a minute or three to express my feelings and deliver a monologue about my motivations and info dump this hastily assembled backstory in case I need to nobly sacrifice myself for the greater good, while you just look on gormlessly nodding as the body count climbs. Everything might be turned up to 11, but the eye rollingly forced emotional bullshit managed to overshadow it all. I would have preferred the Seasame Street script writers to have written it.
PBS is not simply Bob Ross and Mr Rogers. for example, PBS NewsHour
Also NOAA receives significant funding for climate change efforts primarily from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
Have you watched PBS in a while? It's easily one of the most left leaning channels out there. Sure, there are a few programs, many in the past, that might have been mostly neutral but that's certainly not the case today.
PBS has always been political, it's just the unfortunate reality that conservatives are upset over the past 80 or so years of progress and want a 'great reset' to try and reorganize things to benefit them. When the very notion of empathy is deemed to be woke, it's unfortunately no surprise that they would target PBS immediately.
Mr. Rogers frequently pushed the envelope in terms of welcoming Black individuals during a period where segregation was still very publicly affecting people even after the civil rights act. We look back on these episodes and don't see anything radical, but at the time they were very much so.
[flagged]
This is how you know you live in a bubble.
PBS is unbelievably slanted; you just happen to agree with them in general.
Here is the CEO of PBS saying insane things about the truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYXrhOXkwU
"The truth is a distraction"
That is the CEO of NPR, not PBS.
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
> accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
People often equate "Public" with meaning "middle-center" or "apolitical". Many would claim National Public Radio (NPR) is middle-center, politically-speaking.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
that's a mischaracterization of what neutral or apolitical is.
The broadcaster doesnt have to report that killing puppies is good once in a while!
I'm confident you understand the difference between killing puppies and the bias, partisan reporting that occurs on many "news" stations.
Bob Ross died 30 years ago, and Mr. Roger’s died over 20 years ago. Basing your argument on decades old examples is a pretty clear indicator of its merits.
[flagged]
Wouldn't it be better to let those towers go dark, and await the public outcry, instead of temporarily hiding the effects?
The PBS affiliate stations in most need of federal funding are typically in rural, largely Republican areas. Let their own base tell the party they're not happy about being cut-off from their baseball documentaries and all the educational shows their kids watch.
Or maybe those stations will simply close, never to be reopened, which in the grand scheme of things seems like a worse outcome.
Someone close to the administration could reopen them "in the interest of national security" or some such rubbish, isn't Larry's son in the media game?
PragerU shorts injected directly in to Sesame Street wasn't on my 2025 bingo card but its not the wildest thing I've seen out of the US this year.
This is the worse outcome, and the more likely one.
Those republicans have cheered on their local news being literally mouthpieces for a global company: Sinclair Broadcasting
Those republicans left Fox News when they were forced to admit that they lied, and instead tuned into "media" that kept insisting that the 2020 election was "stolen"
Those same people are cheering on an administration that erases American history because it is uncomfortable and cheer on a President who lies when his mouth is open.
Thinking they will suddenly come to their senses is just delusional.
>all the educational shows their kids watch.
They don't let their kids watch educational shows. They buy documentaries from religious fundamentalist groups and force their children to watch shows about how the scientists lie to them for satan. They take their kids to organizations run by the Discovery Institute, including exhibits about how dinosaurs are a lie perpetrated by science.
These people have been purposely nurturing an anti-science cult for decades. They have an entire "alternative" media infrastructure set up. PragerU is just a minuscule part of it.
> Thinking they will suddenly come to their senses is just delusional.
Abstract proclamations don't affect people. Taking something away from them, affects them. That's when the rubber hits the road. That's when the public starts turning on the politicians. Even the strictest party-line voters don't support EVERYTHING (or even most of what) the party says and does.
> They don't let their kids watch educational shows.
> They have an entire "alternative" media infrastructure set up.
"PBS has also reported a diverse ideological split among its consumers [...] 26% who self-identify as Republicans and 37% who say they are independents."
https://www.thewrap.com/defund-pbs-npr-impact/
"Among those that voted for President Trump, PBS/public television has a much higher positive image rating (60%) than the traditional broadcast networks (37%), cable TV networks (41%) and newspapers (24%)."
"66% who voted for President Trump favor increasing or maintaining federal funding for public TV"
https://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/blogs/news/survey-shows-...
>continues to support the very medium that brought his joy and creativity into American homes
The message is more important than the medium. With the advent of the internet and platforms like YouTube it's easier than ever to get your video, your message, into the homes of America.
Sure, but PBS member stations also function as incubators, in addition to providing a platform. They provide (along with underwriting from 3rd party charitable institutions) artists/intellectuals/entertainers the upfront capital to produce their programming. YouTube isn't going to provide anyone with money upfront to make a show unless they already have a massive following. Mr. Rogers Neighborhood wouldn't exist if WQED hadn't taken a chance on a couple of 20 something's letting them produce Children's Corner in 1958.
It's certainly possible that's less necessary nowadays, given how cheap filming and creating video content is nowadays, but it's worth considering.
Youtube has incubated many multiples the number of creators than PBS member stations despite not providing upfront funding. Most creators don't start out from corporations or business loans.
Let’s compare MrBeast with Mr Rogers…
We got Ms Rachel from YouTube, who is genuinely fantastic.
exactly. would veritasium, 3brown1blue, action lab, nile blue/red, up and atom, simone, etc. even exist via the PBS funding model?
The "PBS spacetime" channel exists, so they're doing something right.
If it was properly funded? Quite possibly. If it had the same funding as Youtube's ad revenue then I think you'd have all those, but maybe a lot less of PewPewDie and Dude Perfect.
which channel is simone? the name is too generic, a search only turns up uninteresting stuff.
Pretty good chance they meant Simone Giertz, who is fantastic:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3KEoMzNz8eYnwBC34RaKCQ
She got her start by being "Shitty robot queen" on reddit, not youtube.
Imagine YouTube but publicly funded. No horrible AI targetted ads without any restraint. No monopolistic control over half the worlds viewing devices to control what's installed.
Instead, public good free informational content.
Now Imagine it costs 100x what it costs google to run, but it has 1/100th the features and is down often.
If everything was geared towards efficiency, there wouldn't be any investigative journalism or open source software.
Everyone would be shooting for their own gain and we would all be worse of as a result.
Why 100x the cost? What features are so important besides functional URLs to videos?
Sharing videos publicly online is hard and Youtube is fake democratization for market capture.
As long as I'm imagining, I'd also like a pony.
[flagged]
When the way of consuming the medium changes, the message it carries changes as well. The reason public broadcasting is so well loved and "special" is that it was something collective (out of necessity). If I don't like charcircuit, I can find a youtube video declaring charcircuit a dangerous enemy combatant. When you are the only game in town, there was a sense of making it somewhat "casual" and we got things like bob ross and mr. rogers neighbourhood.
If pbs was only balanced or apolitical. There were several high profile blunders they refused to apologize or change. Would have been the same outcome if things were reversed. Heck, they could have done a pbs right and pbs left channel. But they know better. Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
> Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
As the country rapidly descends into a right wing totalitarian state, it's great that you identified the real culprit: people who complained our country was descending into a right wing totalitarian state.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Ah, yes, you must be comparing NPR to all of the fair and balanced “clear eyed” right wing media we’ve come to know and love. No extremism or bias there whatsoever… /s
Taxpayers don't have to pay for those outlets, though. They're part of this thing called free speech.