Democrats Warn Cutting State Propaganda Will Lead To Fascism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressional Democrats sounded an alarm Friday, warning that cutting funding for state-sponsored propaganda programs would lead to fascism.
In a swift executive action, President Donald Trump ended government funding of both PBS and NPR over concerns of reporting bias and leftist propaganda, which Democrats say will undoubtedly cause fascist ideologies to spread unimpeded across the nation.
"In Normandy, brave men and men identifying as women invaded German-occupied France to preserve our way of life," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a passionate speech on Capitol Hill. "Now President Trump has carelessly thrown away everything they died for by ending the funding of propaganda programs, thus facilitating the return of the Nazi Party."
"This is classic fascism," he continued. "Only a Nazi would prevent the government from spreading false information as a means to manipulate the people it pretends to serve."
According to sources, Republicans strongly disagreed with Schumer's remarks, even going so far as to say he is "the one being a real fascist." But this claim is false, said fact-checkers.
"If I can't control the means of information so that people will believe the lies I tell them, America is lost," said official fact checker Benji Woolcrest, a registered Democrat. "What could be fascist about that?"
At publishing time, Capitol insiders said Democrats were concerned that eliminating state-sponsored media could set the dangerous precedent of people being told the truth and being able to form their own opinions.
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
These not so funny satire pieces are all the desperate moron supporters of Trump can come up with now days. And whats really sad about this one is that it acts like it's poking fun but rightwing conservatism actually believes that NPR and PBS were spreading "lies".
The fact is, NPR and PBS do not and have not been "spreading false information". What these dickless bigots who hate NPR are upset about are things like how they would cover the Trump campaign and bringing on guests who were opposed to Trump. That's not lies or disinformation. Even the supposed "turning a blind eye" to the Hunter Biden laptop story, even though they did cover it though clearly not like Fox News did, isn't "spreading false information".
Basically, this all really just comes down to sour grapes coming from ignorant bigots who hate non-religious based education, diversity, inclusion and equality being taught to children at taxpayers expense. It's not about lies; it's not about spreading false information. Sure, teaching children to treat others with respect regardless of their skin color or their genitals matching their personality or who they choose to love doesn't conform with some religious bigot's doctrine, but it's not "lies".
Lol.
That was an NPR story just 5 days before your Twitter link that just shows that the editor felt like many did at that time, that pushing a story that had not been vetted and spending half or more of their programming time covering an unverified story like rightwing media was doing was folly. As actual vetting and facts came out later, they diligently reported on it.
More details emerge in federal investigation into Hunter Biden : NPR
Also, in the NPR article, and the Twitter link, I see no lies or "spreading false information". If you see a lie, why not try to point it out. Did NPR say "The laptop in question is NOT Hunter Bidens!" or anything of the sort? Of course not, that's because they're actual honest journalists and not the hyper-partisan conservative Republicans who daily push their lies on right wing media that doesn't give a fuck about truth until they think their opponent might get caught in a lie.
Any lies found in that NPR story? Nope. Just doing their job exposing the actual useless fucking morons who shouldn't be allowed to call themselves journalists. Did NPR get sued and have to pay nearly $800 million for telling lies and were forced to admit under oath that their journalists were lying? Of course not, because NPR journalists weren't doing that kind of shit. That apparently only happens on rightwing conservative media where they don't give a fuck about truth, they want news that "feels" true to them and their warped rightwing conservative fucking religious indoctrination brain.
Fox settles Dominion lawsuit for $787.5 million over US election lies | Reuters
Rupert Murdoch admits Fox News hosts peddled election lies
Fox settlement part of flurry of lawsuits over election lies | AP News
So, it's clear to see that this "satire" is only another sad attempt to claim the moral high ground when it's abundantly clear many rightwing conservatives have no morals let alone moral high ground.
Your reply reads like satire. The New York Times reporting was 100% accurate. Yet somehow you attack the media who correctly reported it and defend those who simply parroted lies by the Biden campaign and misled their readers.
Then, for reasons I can't fathom, you highlight that NPR finally started reporting on the story accurately 18 months after if was initially correctly reported. As if that helps NPR.
What's hilarious is NPR has publicly admits they massively screwed up their coverage. But Bluenaon is so invested in defending the indefensible they'll keep regurgitating what NPR itself is too embarrassed to claim. Wake up. When the people you are trying to defend refuse to embarrass themselves by making these arguments in public, you probably shouldn't be either.
? You mean the NY Post, but hey, who's bitching about things not being 100% accurate...
I see that in your reply you still can't point out where NPR lied or "spread false information". All they admitted to was choosing not to push a story that was unverified. NY Post chose to push it as did most rightwing media because even if it wasn't true, it could still affect voter's opinions. It turned out to be true, though it doesn't actually prove Joe Biden committed any crimes even though after listening to the dumbshit crew of Trump sycophants one could be forgiven for believing that.
The long and short is that NPR did nothing wrong and did not lie and did not "spread false information" as you've been unable to refute in your response.
Riiiight. Whereas "Benji Woolcrest" is a real person and "If I can't control the means of information so that people will believe the lies I tell them, America is lost," is an accurate quote.
Do you understand what satire is?
I do.
Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
The problem is that supporting public television is neither stupid nor a vice. I believe it's given millions of young Americans an educational head start, especially those whose parents couldn't afford pre-school, and has been teaching them better morals than any bigoted religion ever has. When Sesame Street teaches children to be kind to others, there are no exceptions for those Big Bird hates. Oscar may be grouchy but he's not refusing to accept the results of a free and fair election just because he "feels" it was fraudulent.
This is seed is just another in a long line from stupid religious conservative bigots trying to make fun of those exposing them for being stupid bigots and, once again, doing a poor job of it.
OK, then I shouldn't have to explain the stupidity of mistaking it for reality and getting yourself wound up over it.
One of the funniest things about irreverent satire is mocking joyless, self righteous puritans who take everything too seriously and squawk about how "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!" It may not have been that funny, but their reaction is.
We have federal govt dollars going to a media outlet whose news programs favor one political party over another. In no universe should that be acceptable.
Well, if that's OK, you should have no problem subsidizing Fox News..... OR.... we could start being objective and admit it's not actually OK.
So maybe they could stick to educational programming and skip the editorialized news content. Or maybe they could keep that news but make intentional efforts to report in an unbiased fashion... like actual professional journalists.
[✘]
Unfortunately the article doesn't seem that far from what many of our folks on the left are saying.
More whining and invented victimhood from the far right crybabies who are convinced that public broadcasting is out to get them. They don’t even listen to NPR or watch PBS. They just craft nightmares of Mr. Rogers and Big Bird coming to take their guns and shoot God with them. Then, the darker people of the world will move into their neighborhoods and ogle their women.
So only left leaning people pay attention to NPR or PBS?
Is that projection?...
Crazy how "taxes shouldn't fund partisan media" turns into "the darker people of the world will move into their neighborhoods and ogle their women." Very odd.
I’m happy to converse with anyone who doesn’t just post random nonsense in reply.
Um.....he quoted your post.
Can you imagine the apoplectic meltdowns if Fox News were govt subsidized?
They have very different missions, though, don’t they.
Public radio and television stations developed with an educational mission. I actually watch public television and listen to public radio (unlike I presume, every member of Congress or the administration who wants to defund it), and I think they have done a fairly good job of living up to that mission.
Unfortunately for conservatives, “educational” can mean - in fact, it almost has to mean - being exposed to ideas and perspectives that the audience is unfamiliar with. It may even make some people uncomfortable or conflict with their traditions.
That doesn’t mean it has some kind of commie, anti-American agenda.
The government can support it or not, but there are many things that I think are in the national interest, and PBS/NPR - or something very much like it - is included in that list. If there is something real that people don’t like, let discuss and debate it. Maybe there is a thoughtful adjustment we can make. But just giving up on it is as dumb and brutish as “defund the police.”
In theory, yeah.
Ah. It's all about the ignorant conservatives. Riiiiiiiight. C'mon.
Are we really going to try to pretend that NPR isn't identified as "left leaning" by multiple independent reviewers? I guess that helps avoid the conversation around whether or not we should be using public money to fund an organization with a documented history of bias toward one political party.
Probably, but there is a good chance that ship has sailed. I don't know that the current climate is likely to permit much thoughtful discussion about anything right now.
It does cause one to wonder why such adjustments were not made already.
They are the ones complaining. And I maintain they are ignorant because they don’t actually consume the news from public radio and tv so that they may make an informed analysis. It is rare that conservatives can site actual examples of unfairness in the news coverage. Even less, will you see examples of inaccuracy.
And I would say that most of the content on PBS and NPR isn’t even news, which is fine, because it’s not supposed to be. Mostly, it is genuinely educational. Unless you think NOVA, Masterpiece Theater, or Fresh Air have a liberal agenda. And if that’s the case, all I can say is maybe watch and listen more, instead of just accepting whatever FoxNews has to say about the networks.
Sure, it usually is rated as “leaning left” - a little. Many very good news outlets “lean” one way or the other. Very few are actually generally rated in the middle. But there is a big difference between leaning left and the nefarious hard left characterization that so many conservatives level at NPR.
Maybe because the far right is too interested in using NPR as a political football, and not actually improving it.
You have government run media supporting their opponents. Yes. They're complaining. As they should be. The moment NPR becomes right leaning, every liberal in America will be screaming about the "state-run propaganda machine" and calling everybody fascist (again). It is not OK for govt controlled media to be biased, even if you happen to agree with that bias.
And you're going to maintain that liberals do??? You're kidding, right?
That's probably one of the "thoughtful adjustments" we should be talking about. If it's not really their mission, and it duplicates something historically done independently by the private sector, and it creates a significant conflict of interest risk... maybe we think about cutting that particular type of programming.
Degree of lean is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I don't think it's hard left, but it shouldn't be left or right at all.
The implication that the far right has had any sway whatsoever over NPR for the last several years is an odd one.
The point here is that if NPR had been managed responsibly, they would have been committed to journalistic integrity and therefore impartiality. They would have monitored it consistently, guarding against the reputation damage that comes with being labeled a biased outlet. They would have understood the additional responsibility associated with their uniquely important position as the sole government funded news source and they would have fought against bias tooth and nail.
But they didn't do that. They were fine with the "lean left" reputation. So here we are.
Absolutely untrue. The government does not run either PBS or NPR. Furthermore, who is the opponent? The current system was proposed by Eisenhower, and has operated under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Public broadcasting does get funding from the government, but so do lots of industries. Agriculture. Tech. Manufacturing. Energy. Every sector of the economy is subsidized by the federal government. And businesses that receive those subsidies still feel free to express themselves publicly on matters of public concern.
Elon Musk owns X - one of the largest social media platforms in the world, from which he has substantial influence on public perception of news events. He has also received billions of dollars from the federal government. Now, he has actual, direct access to government systems and records. That’s not a crisis, but funding Public Broadcasting is??
NPR - as a network - gets about 1% of its funding from the federal government. Local stations get more like 8-10%. PBS gets about 13% of its funding from the federal government. That means they get the vast majority of their funding from private contributions. Those donors, and the audience, have far more to say about the content and editorial priorities than the government does.
I don’t understand what you are asking me. That liberals listen to - and therefore have firsthand knowledge of - NPR content? Could be. I’m sure some must.
You’re never going to achieve perfect neutrality 24/7/365. One reason is that any measurement of neutrality is ultimately subjective. One man’s neutral is another’s partisanship.
They have made no attempt at sway other than to call for defunding.
I listen to NPR quite a bit. I live in a place where it’s literally the only shot I have at local news. In my experience, they are very good about giving a chance to both sides of a question to have a voice. I hear them ask tough questions of both liberals and conservatives. One thing I don’t hear is editorializing. There are no shows where some host is telling me what they think or what I should think.
Truthfully, only the most insecure conservatives are the ones making any noise about NPR and bias. And they whine about every outlet that isn’t 100% actively promoting them all the time.