NPR-PBS massively over-represents women, LGBTQ & fringe elements - ignoring bulk of nation

NPR massively over-represents women, LGBTQ and all of their movements/perspectives

I started listening to NPR/PBS when I was about 8 years old, about 25-30 years ago (mainly b/c my parents would have it on b/c back THEN they often played about 50% classical music, great music that was relaxing to drive to and it would keep us kids quiet in the backseat while we studied on our daily trip to wherever (usually 30-90 mins one way after school, then the same on the way back).

I kept listening to it throughout my life and when I learned that there really was MAJOR bias in the news (around 2003-2004) I realized how left leaning NPR was and it has become worse by orders of magnitude every few years until we have finally gotten to a point where it is basically the voice of the white hating, man bashing (especially white men), derogatory to minorities in a very subtle way (while making it seem like they are supporting them...) progressive/Marxist left.

I think there needs to be some kind of study where we find the distribution of how many women are in manager/C-level positions and or hosts/guest speakers, reporters, writers, etc. On top of that what is the percentage of guests that they have on the show, men vs women and on top of that, what is their political affiliation?

What I find most infuriating, not for the reason many will say (bigotry/homo/trans-phobia/etc) is the insanely disproportionate number of guests and stories where either the guest is from one of these SMALL minority groups, or a person from one (or many) of these groups is the host/writer of the segment.

I would say that it is probably WELL over 70% feminist stories, LGBTQ themed stories (or the host/person presenting story is, or the story is about that). And the stories about females are normal female stories, they are always something that is about as extreme left as one can get, often making men out to be violent, mean, horrible beasts which they use stereotypes of a very small minority to paint all males (especially white ones), but also minority males if it fits their agendas.

They also are one of the first to support things like illegal immigration and demonize the Trump admin (even if Obama had done worse, or if it is Obama's policies - NEVER a mention of these things) and they do their damnest to manipulate the audience all while being funded by YOUR TAX dollars.

I would say that over 50-70% of the content on these stations is trash and should only be aired on "alternative life style" segments of NPR/PBS, IF they should be aired at all.

I think it is well past time that there are MAJOR changes. WE need more highly conservative males in the management of this organization as well as in the position of hosts, writers, reporters, etc, so there is a balanced perspective being portrayed by this publicly funded media station.


How can we take a stand against this politically motivated propaganda arm of progressive Marxism? How can we request that all funding be stopped or at least withheld, and better yet, their FCC licensing (because they are so outrageously biased).

Every person in the country should be able to turn on this station and hear their point of view discussed, supported, and argued over (against opposing opinions).

We need to set up some kind of system where people can qualify the topic (liberal/conserve/LGBTQ/anti-2nd/Drug legalization/etc), also list the hosts, guests, (genders, their qualifications/backgrounds/employers/alma-mater/political affiliation/stance on issue/etc) and also list if they are gay/trans/minority(black/hispanic/asian/white/arab/etc) and religion. We really need to see just how far these numbers are skewed.

In one day I counted almost 40-45% of the guests were almost certainly gay, and that wasn't b/c of some gay pride, holiday, etc. IT is just what NPR does. How can such a small percentage of the population get so much air time on federally funded radio/TV! THIS SHOULD BE 100% illegal, as there should be equal representation.

Imagine if black Americans only got 1.3% of guest spots while gay's got 25-30% of the spots. Blacks have a MUCH higher percentage of the population so it would seem they are being actively discriminated against.

I suggests a class action law suit against this organization for the damage they do to those who listen to them, b/c they are, by their charter, supposed to fairly represent the news, population, etc.

Let's sue these Marxists into the ground to the point were they will never again be able to spout their slanted hate/bias and allow a legitimate news organization to rise from the ashes which will be a beacon of truth and what the people actually want. Possibly an alternative to FOX news, that covers conservative angles, but without the unwanted spin that leads people to believe total untruths.

I want a program/station like this, I just want it to fairly represent ALL of the US population, not just the far left zealots. I would NEVER support a re-structure of the existing model with ANY of the existing employees. It needs burnt to the ground and the ashes launched into space on the next BFR! How do we start this movement, how can we start making the study to see just how biased this organization is.?

A Federally funded media should never have a political bias. Sadly, it is well documented how biased NPR is despite the fact we ALL pay their operating expenses. I believe there should be laws that require unbiased fairness in any media that takes public funds.

originally posted by: Metallicus
A Federally funded media should never have a political bias. Sadly, it is well documented how biased NPR is despite the fact we ALL pay their operating expenses. I believe there should be laws that require unbiased fairness in any media that takes public funds.

And there you go.
Why in HADES does the government fund a privately funded organization ?
Too political to fail ?

NPR is so over the edge, it makes one angry listening to them. Anyone that was centered has been removed over the last few years. It's a platform for nut cases. Very few worthwhile causes ever get discussed.



And yea, when it goes off on women, LGBTQ & fringe elements I turn it off. I listen occasionally, but not much really. I used to like it a decade ago.... not now.

a reply to: Gothmog

Republicans have been trying to kill government money to NPR since the 90's as they are a publicly funded arm of the DNC.



www.politico.com...

Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich's efforts in the mid-1990s to "zero out" funds for public broadcasting may have been the most memorable battle, but Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon went after the subsidies during their administrations too. President George W. Bush tried to cut funds to public broadcasting every year he was in office.

61 percent of NPR's audience describes itself as progressive, while only 15 percent described themselves as tea party supporters.

But Yea, You nailed it 100%. Sad really.a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The OP is preaching to the choir - I've known of their very blatant biases for years. I used to like NPR, but it has become very propaganda-heavy.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with you. But then I'm the person that posted 3 reasons why women shouldn't have the vote last week.

All the funding to the arts should be cut off. Not only does much of this money fund degenerate projects but funding the arts is not really the business of government IMO. Personally, I enjoy art and music. Just don't think govt should pay for it.

That aside, I think PBS probably does do a good job with their choice of programs. They don't represent America; they cater to the people that donate money. And they air shows designed to get people to donate more money.

Not all of PBS is taxpayer funded. There are small donors that the telethon style music programs are aimed at. If you have ever watched one of their shows and paid attention to the credits; you will remember things like "funded in part by such and such foundation." They will often list 6 or 7 foundations. These philanthropic organizations are where their biggest money comes from. I guess the type of person that gives away money for a living tends to be a liberal.

So it looks like I'm not the only one that has noticed that extreme disparity in both coverage and those being employed as hosts/writers/etc.

I want to make it 100% clear that I am not against ANY of the groups I mentioned other than that they seems to overwhelmingly represent smaller minority groups in ratios that would make people think the US is composed mainly of LGBTQ, feminists and extreme progressives.

Has ANYONE ever heard of a conservative (let along a while male conservative) being the news anchor or writer for ANY of their segments? I'm still waiting after about 15+ years since I realized their extreme political progressive agenda.

I think we need to keep a good representitive of ALL minorities (save maybe some TOTALLY extrereme viewpoints on R or L, such as people who would advocate a new holocaust for their specific hated "others" group). I don't really think those people should have a platform to spout that hate, but I do think they should be interviewed by a qualified anchor/news person, so that the public understands that there ARE people out there that have these views. Keeping these types of people hidden and out of the media doesn't really serve the public good, as an uninformed public is more likely to fall prey to groups such as this.

Now again, don't get me wrong, I don't want to ban any of the hosts/guests/ topics I discussed in the OP, what I want is some kind of equality in representation in those anchoring/writing/etc the programs as well as the guests who appear on ALL shows, not just conservative hosts interviewing conservative guests - that isn't a recipe for success. In cases like this, I would think it would be best to have 2 hosts with opposing views and possibly 2+ guests with opposing views, so we can see the viewpoints from different angles.

As it stands now, we are in no way getting this. It's one sided and toxic to the overall political discourse in this country.

Any ideas on how to motivate NPR/PBS to implement these changes would be greatly appreciated b/c I think there is a place for this organization. If they choose that they aren't interested in portraying both sides of the political spectrum, then what are our options to push the government to pull 100% of their funding as well as revoke their FCC charter.?

Any and all ideas are greatly appreciated and welcomed!

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with you. But then I'm the person that posted 3 reasons why women shouldn't have the vote last week.

All the funding to the arts should be cut off. Not only does much of this money fund degenerate projects but funding the arts is not really the business of government IMO. Personally, I enjoy art and music. Just don't think govt should pay for it.

That aside, I think PBS probably does do a good job with their choice of programs. They don't represent America; they cater to the people that donate money. And they air shows designed to get people to donate more money.

Not all of PBS is taxpayer funded. There are small donors that the telethon style music programs are aimed at. If you have ever watched one of their shows and paid attention to the credits; you will remember things like "funded in part by such and such foundation." They will often list 6 or 7 foundations. These philanthropic organizations are where their biggest money comes from. I guess the type of person that gives away money for a living tends to be a liberal.

I'm not sure I support stopping funding for arts but I think we need to have a more narrow classification of what "art" is and what is eligible for federal and non-profit (read government) funding. I'm all for supporting music, especially in cities and economically struggling schools where funds may not be available for programs like this. for people who haven't leaned an instrument or other musical forms, this can seem like a waste of $$ but I'll tell you it is JUST as important as sports, if not more, when developing higher cognitive function and could be a tremendous boon to schools flailing academically (think scholarships for those who excel in school music programs).

I also support "theater" in schools, as it provides many skills people can not get elsewhere, especially people who don't have a lot of parental interaction at home. Some of these programs COULD be the most cost effective money spent in terms of pay-off in real life skills acquired one being self esteem (again something often lacking in financially strapped schools).

Now "Art", drawing, etc, I also fully support, but when it comes to many modern art, where someone draws a line across a 20ft x 6ft canvass and claim it took an entire semester and cost $3-5,000 for that student to perform this, I strongly abhore this. Traditional art, drawing, sketching, painting, sculpture, glass-work, metal work, wood working, even computer graphics, design, architecture and even 3D printing and CAD - things that can be used IRL and skills that can translate into jobs in the real world. Funding these things is very helpful in all schools.

I almost forgot writing, poetry, song writing, etc. All of these are great for expanding the mind, making new neurological connections, expanding vocabulary, learning proper grammar (YEAHHHHHHHH!!!!!), all of this can greatly benefit a students self esteem and probably increases the chance of them getting into a college.

What we need to do is find out WHAT is considered art, if there are some ridiculous categories that have been added over the years (2008-2016 maybe) and see where $ is being thrown away, taking needed funds from areas that could actually benefit from it.

Jeez you sound like my dad.

The fact of the matter is, women and queers like to work in media.

So if you don't like so many women and queers in NPR, why not go and get yourself a job in media and go to work for public broadcasting?

Oh, I almost forgot. You don't like women or queers.

You could also try not paying any taxes. That might make you feel better also.

originally posted by: Namdru
Jeez you sound like my dad.

The fact of the matter is, women and queers like to work in media.

So if you don't like so many women and queers in NPR, why not go and get yourself a job in media and go to work for public broadcasting?

Oh, I almost forgot. You don't like women or queers.

You could also try not paying any taxes. That might make you feel better also.

Boy you really didn't read anything I wrote about me not having a problem with women or "queers" (your word, not mine). That isn't it at all and I think you making it seem like I do have a problem with them is disingenuous and slanderous. It's people like you that would fit RIGHT in at NPR/PBS ATM.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with you. But then I'm the person that posted 3 reasons why women shouldn't have the vote last week.

All the funding to the arts should be cut off. Not only does much of this money fund degenerate projects but funding the arts is not really the business of government IMO. Personally, I enjoy art and music. Just don't think govt should pay for it.

That aside, I think PBS probably does do a good job with their choice of programs. They don't represent America; they cater to the people that donate money. And they air shows designed to get people to donate more money.

Not all of PBS is taxpayer funded. There are small donors that the telethon style music programs are aimed at. If you have ever watched one of their shows and paid attention to the credits; you will remember things like "funded in part by such and such foundation." They will often list 6 or 7 foundations. These philanthropic organizations are where their biggest money comes from. I guess the type of person that gives away money for a living tends to be a liberal.

They may get a lot of their funding from donations, but they get their license (which is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT) form the FCC/federal government - on the condition they are to be non-bias - which they are failing miserably - which is why their charter/"bandwidth" should be revoked and sold off to someone else unless they live up to the national charter that was created to make NPR/PBS a "thing".

They could get 100% funding from donations, but they can still loose their station license b/c they aren't fulfilling their obligations. They could spend 1,000% of what it costs now (through donations) and still have their license pulled for failing to uphold their contractual obligations.

That is just something you CAN NOT get around, and no one has really thought it was a big enough issue to take on, so I guess i'll have to send out a form letter to conservative congressmen showing where they are not fulfilling their obligations to get their FCC charter. Add on top of that any of the studies that are completed showing discrimination against so much of the population and I think we will see a lot of popular support for not only pulling funding, but replacing their stations with a more balanced public radio programming system.

I can tell you that there would be more support now by the conservatives than just about any other time in history and it would make the Dems scream at the sky for years if they had to hear balanced perspectives!

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with you. But then I'm the person that posted 3 reasons why women shouldn't have the vote last week.

All the funding to the arts should be cut off. Not only does much of this money fund degenerate projects but funding the arts is not really the business of government IMO. Personally, I enjoy art and music. Just don't think govt should pay for it.

That aside, I think PBS probably does do a good job with their choice of programs. They don't represent America; they cater to the people that donate money. And they air shows designed to get people to donate more money.

Not all of PBS is taxpayer funded. There are small donors that the telethon style music programs are aimed at. If you have ever watched one of their shows and paid attention to the credits; you will remember things like "funded in part by such and such foundation." They will often list 6 or 7 foundations. These philanthropic organizations are where their biggest money comes from. I guess the type of person that gives away money for a living tends to be a liberal.

They may get a lot of their funding from donations, but they get their license (which is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT) form the FCC/federal government - on the condition they are to be non-bias - which they are failing miserably - which is why their charter/"bandwidth" should be revoked and sold off to someone else unless they live up to the national charter that was created to make NPR/PBS a "thing".

They could get 100% funding from donations, but they can still loose their station license b/c they aren't fulfilling their obligations. They could spend 1,000% of what it costs now (through donations) and still have their license pulled for failing to uphold their contractual obligations.

That is just something you CAN NOT get around, and no one has really thought it was a big enough issue to take on, so I guess i'll have to send out a form letter to conservative congressmen showing where they are not fulfilling their obligations to get their FCC charter. Add on top of that any of the studies that are completed showing discrimination against so much of the population and I think we will see a lot of popular support for not only pulling funding, but replacing their stations with a more balanced public radio programming system.

I can tell you that there would be more support now by the conservatives than just about any other time in history and it would make the Dems scream at the sky for years if they had to hear balanced perspectives!

You both are pissing in with wind...is there a song about that?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with you. But then I'm the person that posted 3 reasons why women shouldn't have the vote last week.

All the funding to the arts should be cut off. Not only does much of this money fund degenerate projects but funding the arts is not really the business of government IMO. Personally, I enjoy art and music. Just don't think govt should pay for it.

That aside, I think PBS probably does do a good job with their choice of programs. They don't represent America; they cater to the people that donate money. And they air shows designed to get people to donate more money.

Not all of PBS is taxpayer funded. There are small donors that the telethon style music programs are aimed at. If you have ever watched one of their shows and paid attention to the credits; you will remember things like "funded in part by such and such foundation." They will often list 6 or 7 foundations. These philanthropic organizations are where their biggest money comes from. I guess the type of person that gives away money for a living tends to be a liberal.

They may get a lot of their funding from donations, but they get their license (which is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT) form the FCC/federal government - on the condition they are to be non-bias - which they are failing miserably - which is why their charter/"bandwidth" should be revoked and sold off to someone else unless they live up to the national charter that was created to make NPR/PBS a "thing".

They could get 100% funding from donations, but they can still loose their station license b/c they aren't fulfilling their obligations. They could spend 1,000% of what it costs now (through donations) and still have their license pulled for failing to uphold their contractual obligations.

That is just something you CAN NOT get around, and no one has really thought it was a big enough issue to take on, so I guess i'll have to send out a form letter to conservative congressmen showing where they are not fulfilling their obligations to get their FCC charter. Add on top of that any of the studies that are completed showing discrimination against so much of the population and I think we will see a lot of popular support for not only pulling funding, but replacing their stations with a more balanced public radio programming system.

I can tell you that there would be more support now by the conservatives than just about any other time in history and it would make the Dems scream at the sky for years if they had to hear balanced perspectives!

You both are pissing in with wind...is there a song about that?

U think so, why? Care to elaborate, b/c I'm pretty sure I've reviewed charters that aren't being fulfilled.

Why do you think people don't care?

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with you. But then I'm the person that posted 3 reasons why women shouldn't have the vote last week.

All the funding to the arts should be cut off. Not only does much of this money fund degenerate projects but funding the arts is not really the business of government IMO. Personally, I enjoy art and music. Just don't think govt should pay for it.

That aside, I think PBS probably does do a good job with their choice of programs. They don't represent America; they cater to the people that donate money. And they air shows designed to get people to donate more money.

Not all of PBS is taxpayer funded. There are small donors that the telethon style music programs are aimed at. If you have ever watched one of their shows and paid attention to the credits; you will remember things like "funded in part by such and such foundation." They will often list 6 or 7 foundations. These philanthropic organizations are where their biggest money comes from. I guess the type of person that gives away money for a living tends to be a liberal.

They may get a lot of their funding from donations, but they get their license (which is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT) form the FCC/federal government - on the condition they are to be non-bias - which they are failing miserably - which is why their charter/"bandwidth" should be revoked and sold off to someone else unless they live up to the national charter that was created to make NPR/PBS a "thing".

They could get 100% funding from donations, but they can still loose their station license b/c they aren't fulfilling their obligations. They could spend 1,000% of what it costs now (through donations) and still have their license pulled for failing to uphold their contractual obligations.

That is just something you CAN NOT get around, and no one has really thought it was a big enough issue to take on, so I guess i'll have to send out a form letter to conservative congressmen showing where they are not fulfilling their obligations to get their FCC charter. Add on top of that any of the studies that are completed showing discrimination against so much of the population and I think we will see a lot of popular support for not only pulling funding, but replacing their stations with a more balanced public radio programming system.

I can tell you that there would be more support now by the conservatives than just about any other time in history and it would make the Dems scream at the sky for years if they had to hear balanced perspectives!

You both are pissing in with wind...is there a song about that?

U think so, why? Care to elaborate, b/c I'm pretty sure I've reviewed charters that aren't being fulfilled.

Why do you think people don't care?

i think people are powerless without money and power behind them.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Here you are talking about schools which are funded by a different program already. "this can seem like a waste of $$ but I'll tell you it is JUST as important as sports, if not more," Yes, in schools. The govt does not fund professional sports, it should not fund professional arts.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Here you are talking about schools which are funded by a different program already. "this can seem like a waste of $$ but I'll tell you it is JUST as important as sports, if not more," Yes, in schools. The govt does not fund professional sports, it should not fund professional arts.

Let's have a vote.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Youre nutters. That time they gave an hour to some maniac that had a book about meat and pet keeping being part of the patriarchal rape culture was brilliant programming.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Was that the sasquatch dude from youtube? I believe he had a sasquatch penis he defrosted one time. That guy is great!