It is ironic to witness an independent journalism outlet bemoan the end of government funding for media - you do get that independent journalism would not exist but for deregulation and defunding breaking the stranglehold of corporate and government funded media? It is even more ironic that you ignore the advent of the Internet, which has made it possible to access literally unlimited content, of any kind, from anywhere, and at any time - and all at a cost far less than the budgets of traditional corporate media and the clumsy apparatus of government- funded programming. Indeed, I will never understand why progressives seem to invariably end up being Luddites - instead of embracing change that allows you to compete and succeed based on your own merits at delivering information, you are arguing in favor of maintaining a media apparatus equivalent to the horse and buggy era of transportation. Personally, given the plethora of choices in today’s media environment, I spend far more time than I want to admit, taking in a vast range of information (and, yes, entertainment), that allows me to process (at the age of 72) a previously unimaginable range of perspectives and information. I have said this before but welcome to the 21st-century - you can either adapt and thrive or wither on the vine.
Ok I did ask so I guess I'll bite. Independent journalism has existed since the invention of the printing press - and what "deregulation" of the airwaves has actually given us is not more independent media, it's more monopolies. Nexstar, Sinclair, iHeart, etc. Almost every network TV and radio station you know is owned by like five companies. Does that sound like a healthy media ecosystem to you? Thanks, deregulation!
I also don't ignore the advent of the internet - we are a purely internet publication and a main point of this is that that's freaking cool that we can do that now. We compete and succeed based on our merits every day.
But I don't think public media is equivalent to a horse and buggy. Control of the airwaves is regulated, and public media is the only non-corporate entity that has any space. It's not an outdated model - it's just good, noncoporate tv and radio in the public interest rather than the advertiser's interest.
Sorry, either I am not being clear or you are missing my point - put in practical terms, I do not watch any “TV stations” or listen to any “radio stations” of any kind - rather (as I believe is the case for many others nowadays) get all of my content via the Internet - streaming, Substack, websites, email or X - including the five newspapers I subscribe to (yes, including the NYT as well as WSJ, Az Republic, etc) plus a ton of online newsletters (like yours), etc. I long ago rejected being “spoon-fed” content filtered through the demonstrably biased NPR (Uri Berliner, a 20+ year NPR veteran, has written extensively about how NPR lost its way) - and, while I enjoy some content historically provided by public broadcasting, I am confident the shows that are worthy will be picked up by streaming services (indeed, that is already happening - masterpiece theater is offered by prime) - and strongly support continued deregulation of the airwaves (although, as I keep trying to point out, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant as so few rely on the “airwaves” for information). Would respectfully suggest, if you think access information is critical (as I do), that we apply public resources to the most cost-effective way of delivering that (which would, at present, mean Starlink - not cable infrastructure, which is expensive and takes long periods of time to implement, as the Biden administration showed us). Anyway, that is what I think - and I encourage others to maintain an open mind and embrace the plethora of information that is available to anyone with curiosity about anything.
Fair enough. But I disagree that Starlink is the answer to our troubles. PBS has existed for 60 years, everyone with a TV has access to it at no extra cost (and we don't have to pay Elon Musk to get it). But yes, I think we as a country should also prioritize free internet (or at least massively subsidized internet) because it's a public good. And especially because it's a necessary tool for kids to even graduate high school these days.
I don't think Starlink is quite the solution you think it is - there was a study out just the other day that when you have more than 6 users per square mile using Starlink, they struggle to attain broadband speeds. The more users present, the further capacity and speed degrades.
This is to say nothing of the danger of putting control and access to the internet and information in the hands of a private company, much less Elon Musk.
I looked at the report, which is pretty technical now, and I am no expert on this technology - from a practical perspective, however, I live in Durango, Colorado during the summers, approximately 8 miles west of town - there are several large lot “subdivisions” in our vicinity, containing hundreds of homes, many of which struggled, for years, to get any cell or Internet reception at all - since the advent of Starlink service, at least half have subscribed to Starlink and, as near as I can tell, are happy with their service, including the Wi-Fi assist feature, which enhances cell service (the only complaints I have heard, this being a pretty “blue” population, is they wish they could get the service from a provider other than Musk - which, of course, would be perfectly possible if anyone else were willing to invest the capital to create a satellite network like Starlink - meaning he does not have a monopoly, he just happens to have been the only one with the foresight and willingness to invest his own money to get it done).
Easy does it. We have all adapted to one degree or another. That's why we are here. People don't like change. Especially outside a comfort zone. Some miss plopping a quarter into a dispenser and getting their hands grimy reading Plaschke and the LA Times. NPR mostly affects people driving in their cars. Shouldn't read or watch TV while driving. Affiliates may have to combine forces. They did that out in West Texas. So, it can be done. Then we can avoid interminable pledge drives. KJZZ is the 800 lb. gorilla and could function as a Statewide anchor. They were around first and have numerous signal repeaters. Even one in Silver City. Combine and conquer.
Fair. But i don't think KJZZ will ever cover Cochise County the way it deserves. I'd rather see a little station in every corner of the state digging up shit in their own communities than rely on repeaters from phoenix to cover the whole state.
For local news, both the KJZZ Sun Up podcast and their Friday Newscap are in my routine and would hurt to see go.
NPR and PBS also do much of the original reporting that later trickle in news aggregators, recaps, and commentary newsletters. Without the baseline work by handfuls of public reporters, stories will go unreported altogether.
In Kingman NPR is very faint - the local AM radio station went national with nothing but out of area right wing. The FM is not my style. There is no local TV. The newspaper is down to once a week.
Lol I had a footnote in there like please don't email us we don't love Weiss either. Took it out because the email was too long. But I am impressed with what she's built, even if i don't love her takes, including Let's Burn NPR Down.
“…golden era of news organizations that are beholden only to their readers.” Maybe. That word beholden could be a trap. As a subscriber, I’d urge you to always be wary of audience capture. If you calibrate your coverage solely around what you think your audience wants, then you risk becoming a sunnier Fox News or like a tired columnist who only plays their hits because they’re so worried about pissing off their readers.
Totally. You've got to be willing to piss off even your subscribers. Luckily, in my experience, that generally finds you new subscribers. The joy of living in a bitterly divided country!
I can't imagine an evening without Arizona Horizon or the countless hours of uniquely resourceful and entertaining programming that PBS and NPR have provided to me and my family over my very long lifetime. I have always and will continue to support them to the utmost.
Let me start by saying that I love NPR. I have been listening (and financially supporting) my local NPR station since college. They produce amazing well-reported journalism. But they DO show a left bias. Anyone who tells you they don't is not paying attention. I think their journalism will thrive - and maybe improve even - when uncoupled from politics. At the end of the day, I think it's better for NPR and for taxpayers to separate NPR from federal funding. They can focus on producing news and won't be a political football. They'll obviously still have to deal with the tantrums of this administration - which just basically dislikes "news" writ large. But it was only a matter of time until their federal funding disappeared. I love your thoughts about a golden age of independent journalism and it's so true. Some of the best journalism and thought pieces are on substack (also on you tube podcast channels!).
Yeah I'm also of the mixed opinion that in the long run, losing that funding might actually be best for the system. On the other hand, that's massive cuts to a cornerstone of our news ecosystem at a very fragile time, so it's bad. I mentioned the Public Notice Debacle - back when I didn't have to worry about actually paying people or getting paid and didn't really think or care about the overall health of the news industry other than does my current job still exist, I was all for them just pulling the trigger and cutting off that funding - because every year they would threaten to do it just to cower our corporate overlords a bit. (Though the publisher of the CapTimes back then was a total badass who never once mentioned to us reporters how much financial damage we were doing lol.)
Here’s Republican priorities in action: Cut $1.1 billion from Public Broadcasting (thus ending the federal contribution) while cozying up to Trump’s mental diarrhea idea of reopening Alcatraz at a potential cost of $2 billion plus estimated ongoing operation and maintenance expenses three times as much as currently operating federal prisons.
I’m thankful my son grew up learning the alphabet and numbers … and civility … from Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. I’m glad I had a chance to form political opinions in my young adulthood by being exposed to thoughtfully articulated conservative points of view on William F. Buckley’s Firing Line. Now that’s public service!
Sadly, Substack is losing a significant amount of independence and objectivity with a $100M investment by private equity/venture capital. Investors include right-wing tech bro and Trump acolyte Marc Andreesson. Not that Substack was a nirvana before, with its refusal to stop Nazi propagandists from establishing bases here. Next step? https://andrawatkins.substack.com/p/we-have-seen-this-social-media-movie
Don't even get me started on substack. It's a real love/hate relationship over here. What are you all at CEBV thinking? We local substackers should get a happy hour going to scheme...
I don't think this investment will change anything about the independence and objectivity of the creators who publish on the Substack platform. The writers who publish here are still paid by the readers who subscribe - that's the cornerstone of the business model. And I don't think it's accurate to say that Nazi propagandists have established bases here. The Atlantic article that initiated this line of attack was so full of holes that Jonathan Chait called for it to be retracted entirely. No platform is going to have a perfect balance between content moderation and free speech. If people are worried about billionaires "asserting more overt fascist control over the Substack platform, its overarching message, and its creators," as the article you linked puts it, then the last thing we should want is a stricter content moderation policy. The trend, lately, seems to be that more left-leaning writers, TV anchors, and public figures are setting up accounts here. What worries me is the possibility that the investment will cause Substack to try to go with an advertising model ... this is what would ruin the experience for me, at least for the app. As for now, I enjoy reading independent writers on Substack who are coming from a variety of different ideological points of view.
Yeah the nazi thing also bothers me because you're right, any place that doesn't moderate content is gonna have Nazis. This is not a substack problem, it's an America problem. Still a very love/hate relationship with substack, all nazi problems aside.
I work with many in the Arizona Native American veterans community on a variety of projects, if those stations go away, it will be very damaging to the distribution of info to the various nations esp in the Native Languages. I have aproject right now that should be a slam duck but has taken eight months due to a lack of understandning of how things work in the Navajo Nation in particular and how things work back East. And this is for the donation of a Narcan (ReVive) to help the isolated communities. NPR hasnt helped themselves in some of their broadcasting as they tend to echo the culture of the coasts. I am orignally from Boston and a big fan of NPR but they dont always show the culture of midAmerica and like the last election, some people might get tired of being told they are not quite so smart. It will hurt the rural communities but what does a New York developer who thinks Westchester County is far flung rural know about anything outside of his world.
Regarding your comment, “And we think the government should have a role in helping to subsidize news, which is objectively a public good,” I disagree. Government has a role in making news but should have no role in reporting it. Government controlling news dissemination is dangerous and anti-democratic. And when many subsidized outlets are politically biased, it’s anti-democratic on steroids.
This is an oversimplification of what we may collectively consider "news." Government in many cases has an obligation to provide information as it relates to public safety and public interest. Take for example evacuation notices for natural disasters, safety notices for police activity, information about public projects or services, etc.
That being said I think the Trump administration is demonstrating your point about "Government controlling news dissemination is dangerous and anti-democratic. And when many subsidized outlets are politically biased, it’s anti-democratic on steroids" can also be true. The news sources the right-wing media control very much bias reporting to the extent that many people are woefully underinformed on a variety of issues. Our shared sense of reality and common understanding has broken down as a result.
Consequently, having publicly subsidized, but independent news organizations like NPR/PBS and its affiliates are important. They are not incentivized by profit, nor are they controlled by the government or their powerful allies, their mission is to act as a public service.
No media organization will ever be totally unbiased, and certainly public media makes editorial choices of omission in terms of what they do and do not cover. But I sure as hell trust their intent and incentives - even if the Overton Window in our country has moved to the right.
I look forward to not receiving your press releases! lol jk. But i do second chris' comment below -- that subsidized yet independent, if it can be pulled off correctly, is the dream. Let the subsidies run the whole political spectrum! The problem is you've got to firewall the politicians so they can't take that subsidy away in a fit of pettiness. To me, an informed electorate is a Public Good and the information that actual reporters dig up - whether it's presented through a liberal or conservative lens - is critical to a functioning democracy. I get NPR is liberal, but I wish we judged news not on the lens it's presented through but on the quality of information it contains. If it's a good true story, let the marketplace of ideas debate what it means. But without that original reporting (which NPR does a ton of) we don't even know what to try to make sense of.
I believe that tRump IS dismantling the government. I hate to see pbs and npr go, especially Horizon’s Friday journalist round table. I’m more concerned about what RFK jr is doing and how many millions of kids he will be killing globally before he really gets going on bringing vaccine preventable diseases back to the US.
As a parent, one of the things I appreciate most is the programming provided by PBS Kids. PBS has demonstrated through decades of service that they approach such programing thoughtfully with an eye to childhood development and education. When my kids watch PBS kids, I know that what they're watching is at a minimum educational and appropriate. The same can not be said for a lot of other kid programming which is much more focused on engagement through cheap entertainment, usually to sell or market a product/service.
As much as I appreciate the fantastic independent media that we have in Arizona and Tucson, I worry what will happen when someone with power and money comes after you all because they don't like what you're reporting. One advantage to big news and media organizations is that they have the resources for a legal team and can fight of lawsuits. I really hope you all have a contingency plan for this.
It is ironic to witness an independent journalism outlet bemoan the end of government funding for media - you do get that independent journalism would not exist but for deregulation and defunding breaking the stranglehold of corporate and government funded media? It is even more ironic that you ignore the advent of the Internet, which has made it possible to access literally unlimited content, of any kind, from anywhere, and at any time - and all at a cost far less than the budgets of traditional corporate media and the clumsy apparatus of government- funded programming. Indeed, I will never understand why progressives seem to invariably end up being Luddites - instead of embracing change that allows you to compete and succeed based on your own merits at delivering information, you are arguing in favor of maintaining a media apparatus equivalent to the horse and buggy era of transportation. Personally, given the plethora of choices in today’s media environment, I spend far more time than I want to admit, taking in a vast range of information (and, yes, entertainment), that allows me to process (at the age of 72) a previously unimaginable range of perspectives and information. I have said this before but welcome to the 21st-century - you can either adapt and thrive or wither on the vine.
Ok I did ask so I guess I'll bite. Independent journalism has existed since the invention of the printing press - and what "deregulation" of the airwaves has actually given us is not more independent media, it's more monopolies. Nexstar, Sinclair, iHeart, etc. Almost every network TV and radio station you know is owned by like five companies. Does that sound like a healthy media ecosystem to you? Thanks, deregulation!
I also don't ignore the advent of the internet - we are a purely internet publication and a main point of this is that that's freaking cool that we can do that now. We compete and succeed based on our merits every day.
But I don't think public media is equivalent to a horse and buggy. Control of the airwaves is regulated, and public media is the only non-corporate entity that has any space. It's not an outdated model - it's just good, noncoporate tv and radio in the public interest rather than the advertiser's interest.
Sorry, either I am not being clear or you are missing my point - put in practical terms, I do not watch any “TV stations” or listen to any “radio stations” of any kind - rather (as I believe is the case for many others nowadays) get all of my content via the Internet - streaming, Substack, websites, email or X - including the five newspapers I subscribe to (yes, including the NYT as well as WSJ, Az Republic, etc) plus a ton of online newsletters (like yours), etc. I long ago rejected being “spoon-fed” content filtered through the demonstrably biased NPR (Uri Berliner, a 20+ year NPR veteran, has written extensively about how NPR lost its way) - and, while I enjoy some content historically provided by public broadcasting, I am confident the shows that are worthy will be picked up by streaming services (indeed, that is already happening - masterpiece theater is offered by prime) - and strongly support continued deregulation of the airwaves (although, as I keep trying to point out, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant as so few rely on the “airwaves” for information). Would respectfully suggest, if you think access information is critical (as I do), that we apply public resources to the most cost-effective way of delivering that (which would, at present, mean Starlink - not cable infrastructure, which is expensive and takes long periods of time to implement, as the Biden administration showed us). Anyway, that is what I think - and I encourage others to maintain an open mind and embrace the plethora of information that is available to anyone with curiosity about anything.
Fair enough. But I disagree that Starlink is the answer to our troubles. PBS has existed for 60 years, everyone with a TV has access to it at no extra cost (and we don't have to pay Elon Musk to get it). But yes, I think we as a country should also prioritize free internet (or at least massively subsidized internet) because it's a public good. And especially because it's a necessary tool for kids to even graduate high school these days.
I don't think Starlink is quite the solution you think it is - there was a study out just the other day that when you have more than 6 users per square mile using Starlink, they struggle to attain broadband speeds. The more users present, the further capacity and speed degrades.
https://thexlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Starlink_Analysis_Working_Paper_v0.2.pdf
This is to say nothing of the danger of putting control and access to the internet and information in the hands of a private company, much less Elon Musk.
I looked at the report, which is pretty technical now, and I am no expert on this technology - from a practical perspective, however, I live in Durango, Colorado during the summers, approximately 8 miles west of town - there are several large lot “subdivisions” in our vicinity, containing hundreds of homes, many of which struggled, for years, to get any cell or Internet reception at all - since the advent of Starlink service, at least half have subscribed to Starlink and, as near as I can tell, are happy with their service, including the Wi-Fi assist feature, which enhances cell service (the only complaints I have heard, this being a pretty “blue” population, is they wish they could get the service from a provider other than Musk - which, of course, would be perfectly possible if anyone else were willing to invest the capital to create a satellite network like Starlink - meaning he does not have a monopoly, he just happens to have been the only one with the foresight and willingness to invest his own money to get it done).
Easy does it. We have all adapted to one degree or another. That's why we are here. People don't like change. Especially outside a comfort zone. Some miss plopping a quarter into a dispenser and getting their hands grimy reading Plaschke and the LA Times. NPR mostly affects people driving in their cars. Shouldn't read or watch TV while driving. Affiliates may have to combine forces. They did that out in West Texas. So, it can be done. Then we can avoid interminable pledge drives. KJZZ is the 800 lb. gorilla and could function as a Statewide anchor. They were around first and have numerous signal repeaters. Even one in Silver City. Combine and conquer.
Fair. But i don't think KJZZ will ever cover Cochise County the way it deserves. I'd rather see a little station in every corner of the state digging up shit in their own communities than rely on repeaters from phoenix to cover the whole state.
That's what AZPM is for. Blend them all together in some fashion and strength is multiplied.
For local news, both the KJZZ Sun Up podcast and their Friday Newscap are in my routine and would hurt to see go.
NPR and PBS also do much of the original reporting that later trickle in news aggregators, recaps, and commentary newsletters. Without the baseline work by handfuls of public reporters, stories will go unreported altogether.
How did I deal with the mean-spirited PBS cuts? I doubled my monthly contribution to AZPM, and I hope others do too.
In Kingman NPR is very faint - the local AM radio station went national with nothing but out of area right wing. The FM is not my style. There is no local TV. The newspaper is down to once a week.
So we depend on internet, cable & satellite.
Ugh, bummer.
I was just confused by the part where you called Bari Weiss an....independent journalist. Have you followed her career?
Lol I had a footnote in there like please don't email us we don't love Weiss either. Took it out because the email was too long. But I am impressed with what she's built, even if i don't love her takes, including Let's Burn NPR Down.
“…golden era of news organizations that are beholden only to their readers.” Maybe. That word beholden could be a trap. As a subscriber, I’d urge you to always be wary of audience capture. If you calibrate your coverage solely around what you think your audience wants, then you risk becoming a sunnier Fox News or like a tired columnist who only plays their hits because they’re so worried about pissing off their readers.
Totally. You've got to be willing to piss off even your subscribers. Luckily, in my experience, that generally finds you new subscribers. The joy of living in a bitterly divided country!
I can't imagine an evening without Arizona Horizon or the countless hours of uniquely resourceful and entertaining programming that PBS and NPR have provided to me and my family over my very long lifetime. I have always and will continue to support them to the utmost.
Let me start by saying that I love NPR. I have been listening (and financially supporting) my local NPR station since college. They produce amazing well-reported journalism. But they DO show a left bias. Anyone who tells you they don't is not paying attention. I think their journalism will thrive - and maybe improve even - when uncoupled from politics. At the end of the day, I think it's better for NPR and for taxpayers to separate NPR from federal funding. They can focus on producing news and won't be a political football. They'll obviously still have to deal with the tantrums of this administration - which just basically dislikes "news" writ large. But it was only a matter of time until their federal funding disappeared. I love your thoughts about a golden age of independent journalism and it's so true. Some of the best journalism and thought pieces are on substack (also on you tube podcast channels!).
Yeah I'm also of the mixed opinion that in the long run, losing that funding might actually be best for the system. On the other hand, that's massive cuts to a cornerstone of our news ecosystem at a very fragile time, so it's bad. I mentioned the Public Notice Debacle - back when I didn't have to worry about actually paying people or getting paid and didn't really think or care about the overall health of the news industry other than does my current job still exist, I was all for them just pulling the trigger and cutting off that funding - because every year they would threaten to do it just to cower our corporate overlords a bit. (Though the publisher of the CapTimes back then was a total badass who never once mentioned to us reporters how much financial damage we were doing lol.)
Haha your publisher was saving her gripes for her lobbyist, obviously. Pretty smart.
Here’s Republican priorities in action: Cut $1.1 billion from Public Broadcasting (thus ending the federal contribution) while cozying up to Trump’s mental diarrhea idea of reopening Alcatraz at a potential cost of $2 billion plus estimated ongoing operation and maintenance expenses three times as much as currently operating federal prisons.
I’m thankful my son grew up learning the alphabet and numbers … and civility … from Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. I’m glad I had a chance to form political opinions in my young adulthood by being exposed to thoughtfully articulated conservative points of view on William F. Buckley’s Firing Line. Now that’s public service!
Man that takes me back. My grandma used to watch the firing line when babysitting me.
Sadly, Substack is losing a significant amount of independence and objectivity with a $100M investment by private equity/venture capital. Investors include right-wing tech bro and Trump acolyte Marc Andreesson. Not that Substack was a nirvana before, with its refusal to stop Nazi propagandists from establishing bases here. Next step? https://andrawatkins.substack.com/p/we-have-seen-this-social-media-movie
Don't even get me started on substack. It's a real love/hate relationship over here. What are you all at CEBV thinking? We local substackers should get a happy hour going to scheme...
I don't think this investment will change anything about the independence and objectivity of the creators who publish on the Substack platform. The writers who publish here are still paid by the readers who subscribe - that's the cornerstone of the business model. And I don't think it's accurate to say that Nazi propagandists have established bases here. The Atlantic article that initiated this line of attack was so full of holes that Jonathan Chait called for it to be retracted entirely. No platform is going to have a perfect balance between content moderation and free speech. If people are worried about billionaires "asserting more overt fascist control over the Substack platform, its overarching message, and its creators," as the article you linked puts it, then the last thing we should want is a stricter content moderation policy. The trend, lately, seems to be that more left-leaning writers, TV anchors, and public figures are setting up accounts here. What worries me is the possibility that the investment will cause Substack to try to go with an advertising model ... this is what would ruin the experience for me, at least for the app. As for now, I enjoy reading independent writers on Substack who are coming from a variety of different ideological points of view.
Yeah the nazi thing also bothers me because you're right, any place that doesn't moderate content is gonna have Nazis. This is not a substack problem, it's an America problem. Still a very love/hate relationship with substack, all nazi problems aside.
I work with many in the Arizona Native American veterans community on a variety of projects, if those stations go away, it will be very damaging to the distribution of info to the various nations esp in the Native Languages. I have aproject right now that should be a slam duck but has taken eight months due to a lack of understandning of how things work in the Navajo Nation in particular and how things work back East. And this is for the donation of a Narcan (ReVive) to help the isolated communities. NPR hasnt helped themselves in some of their broadcasting as they tend to echo the culture of the coasts. I am orignally from Boston and a big fan of NPR but they dont always show the culture of midAmerica and like the last election, some people might get tired of being told they are not quite so smart. It will hurt the rural communities but what does a New York developer who thinks Westchester County is far flung rural know about anything outside of his world.
Totally get that coastal culture comment. NPR national makes me guffaw like at least once an hour. That's why we need our local stations!
Regarding your comment, “And we think the government should have a role in helping to subsidize news, which is objectively a public good,” I disagree. Government has a role in making news but should have no role in reporting it. Government controlling news dissemination is dangerous and anti-democratic. And when many subsidized outlets are politically biased, it’s anti-democratic on steroids.
This is an oversimplification of what we may collectively consider "news." Government in many cases has an obligation to provide information as it relates to public safety and public interest. Take for example evacuation notices for natural disasters, safety notices for police activity, information about public projects or services, etc.
That being said I think the Trump administration is demonstrating your point about "Government controlling news dissemination is dangerous and anti-democratic. And when many subsidized outlets are politically biased, it’s anti-democratic on steroids" can also be true. The news sources the right-wing media control very much bias reporting to the extent that many people are woefully underinformed on a variety of issues. Our shared sense of reality and common understanding has broken down as a result.
Consequently, having publicly subsidized, but independent news organizations like NPR/PBS and its affiliates are important. They are not incentivized by profit, nor are they controlled by the government or their powerful allies, their mission is to act as a public service.
No media organization will ever be totally unbiased, and certainly public media makes editorial choices of omission in terms of what they do and do not cover. But I sure as hell trust their intent and incentives - even if the Overton Window in our country has moved to the right.
I look forward to not receiving your press releases! lol jk. But i do second chris' comment below -- that subsidized yet independent, if it can be pulled off correctly, is the dream. Let the subsidies run the whole political spectrum! The problem is you've got to firewall the politicians so they can't take that subsidy away in a fit of pettiness. To me, an informed electorate is a Public Good and the information that actual reporters dig up - whether it's presented through a liberal or conservative lens - is critical to a functioning democracy. I get NPR is liberal, but I wish we judged news not on the lens it's presented through but on the quality of information it contains. If it's a good true story, let the marketplace of ideas debate what it means. But without that original reporting (which NPR does a ton of) we don't even know what to try to make sense of.
I believe that tRump IS dismantling the government. I hate to see pbs and npr go, especially Horizon’s Friday journalist round table. I’m more concerned about what RFK jr is doing and how many millions of kids he will be killing globally before he really gets going on bringing vaccine preventable diseases back to the US.
As a parent, one of the things I appreciate most is the programming provided by PBS Kids. PBS has demonstrated through decades of service that they approach such programing thoughtfully with an eye to childhood development and education. When my kids watch PBS kids, I know that what they're watching is at a minimum educational and appropriate. The same can not be said for a lot of other kid programming which is much more focused on engagement through cheap entertainment, usually to sell or market a product/service.
As much as I appreciate the fantastic independent media that we have in Arizona and Tucson, I worry what will happen when someone with power and money comes after you all because they don't like what you're reporting. One advantage to big news and media organizations is that they have the resources for a legal team and can fight of lawsuits. I really hope you all have a contingency plan for this.
You and me both, Chris. You and me both...
Should I be nervous that Hank knows where to find my old tweets? (Just kidding. Thanks for the throwback!)
God bless your tweets. It took me SO LONG to find that bill. I was starting to wonder if it ever really happened.