_PBS CEO Pops Up Hours After NPR Boss, Claims There’s Zero Evidence of Bias_
Inversion of the burden of proof: If there were no bias, that would be easy to prove simply by showing a long history—including recent history—of news and opinion they've published from both sides of the political spectrum, with a statistically robust distribution between left and right (e.g, a balanced spread to the left and the right from the mid line.)
Key fact: Were there no bias, the left would not be so supportive of these sources, and the right would not be so opposed. That's NOT a debatable point.
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curti…
PBS CEO Pops Up Hours After NPR Boss, Claims There’s Zero Evidence of Bias
With so much of the national political media being manufactured through narratives and public relations campaigns, it wasn’t a shock that PBS CEO Paula Kerger surfaced on CNN Wednesday afternoon for an interview soaked in elitist condescension and li…Newsbusters
relentless_eduardo
in reply to GrumpyRabbit • • •sorry I don't understand this point yet.
but on another note the so-called positions of the left and right do not take into account other views such as libertarian
who at PBS would choose a representative right wing opinion?
GrumpyRabbit
in reply to relentless_eduardo • • •@relentless_eduardoThe burden of proof is on PBS and NPR to justify their continued receipt of public funds. It's not on the taxpayers to prove they don't have to continue to fund them--or anyone else.
There are MANY views other than communism (extreme socialism,) extreme social conservatism, extreme fiscal conservatism, extreme limited government, extreme free-market propertarianism, extreme Progressivism, extreme wokeinsm, etc. And those can be mixed in non-traditional ways (e.g. rabidly pro-transgender + extreme free-market propertarianism + Hinduism.)
That's one of the very strong arguments against ANY public funding for news and opinion publishing: It's inherently impossible to be neutral, to be "balanced."