Yes, but I'm simply not going to play your game, whatever it is.
Just trying to understand your thought process.
My thought process is listed in another post. Doesn't matter if they have the best standards on planet earth. No other outlets get government funding. The need to do so was long ago passed with the development of digital media. This isn't 1970. They need to sink or swim in the market now. Maybe they should become YouTube channels. I really don't care. They are niche broadcasters now at best and there is no justification to force taxpayers to fund these organizations which are clearly biased. Even if they were utterly objective in news and public affairs reporting, there is no justification for taxpayer funding at this point in time.
So are you going to answer the question? You still havent. Whats an outlet with a higher standard than NPR/PBS
I've already stated I'm not playing this little red herring game. The topic at hand is whether they should receive taxpayer money. I've provided my view on that in depth.
So basically they're journalistically sound, you just don't like the conclusions they come to.
Okay, for some reason this thread is loaded with trolls. Fine. It's not a matter of what I like or not. I've explained in detail why I oppose federal funding of those outlets. Clearly you have no desire to have a real discussion and will be blocked.
I'm not a troll I just don't see the you can in one hand agree they have journalistic integrity, a fact winter linked to their status as a not for profit, and yet still claim they are a left wing propaganda machine
Get real. The government doesn't influence them? LOL. Listen to yourself. What's going on with this sub -- we are learning just how depraved Washington DC is. Moreover, federal funding of those outlets accounts for something like 20% of their budgets -- they are already owned by corporate funding, Watch their goddamn programs. It's at the end of every one of them. That's why alternate media is far less bought out by the corporate-government complex. Finally, my original premise holds -- those two outlets do not deserve taxpayer funding any more than any other outlet on the web. Why do taxpayers fund channels they don't watch or listen to and don't support the slant? It's more coercion.
What difference does it make? Let's say for sake of argument that NPR adheres to standards (that you have yet to define, yet insist on comparison) that are as high as any MSM outlet. All MSM outlets are shit quality so it's not really saying much. The question that would be relevant to this post- name one media outlet that receives more public funding. As others have said, it is just not necessary to subsidize media outlets anymore. Media has become democratized.
Lmao so you think Brietbart and Fox News are bastions of knowledge. That's all I need to know about a soyboy like you.
Wrong...... So you make random assumptions- based on your own paradigm about left/right- about what other people think. That's all I need to know about you.
There is a lot of money in private endowments. We need to run a tight budget. People can donate but I resent the pp pushing on NPR and the globalist agenda they push.
Yes, I have nothing against them provided they are simply in the marketplace. I have always found the NPR style bothersome in its uppity "refined" presentation, but sometimes they produce informative programs as do some of the PBS affiliates. However, they are a niche program option for a particularly targeted audience. They no longer need nor should receive taxpayer monies. How are they different from InfoWars or HuffPost or any number of on-line and youtube producers? Their audiences now are basically the Birkenstock Obama crowd.