Here's the problem with the current situation: it's not that the people for this travesty (and it truly is one) are merely misguided and mistaken. They fully understand that the current legislation will break the Internet, because that is their goal. Let me repeat that, just for emphasis: these senators and representatives fully intend on breaking the Internet and turning it into cable TV.
Why? Isn't the Internet this awesome engine of growth, revolutionizing communications across the world? Yes, but that's not the part that matters. What matters is who makes money off of it, and who screams the loudest.And the people who scream the loudest and who are the most impacted by the Internet are all the old media and power structures. The Internet is their guillotine, and they will do everything they can do stay alive. The easiest way to do this is to influence, subtly or less so, the legislators who ultimately are in charge of how things work in this world.
That's why you hear statements like "I don't understand the technical details, and I don't care". These people truly do not care that they are breaking the Internet, because that is their goal. That's why arguing that the internet will be broken by SOPA and PROTECT IP is a complete waste of time. You want to talk to these legislators? Either pull out bigger donating and campaigning guns than the old media elite, or pull out arguments that counter the ones from the old media: that the current Internet is destroying value, destroying content makers' ability to make money, etc.
Dude, stick to your script of bashing google.You can't tell a Democracy from a direct Democracy from a Republic. You can't tell free speech from a majority voting system, and think that because something isn't perfect, it should be tossed out. And finally, you just make up shit when you say "and would likely even attempt to make law to kill them".
In short, you're either a giant troll, or an even bigger moron. Your Google bashing is pretty subtle at this point, but the rest is really junky.
Sony doesn't hate pirates, because pirates are cheap and never pay for anything. Sony does hate the second-hate market though, because these people are willing to pay money for a game, but Sony doesn't see a red cent of it.
That's why nearly all recent games, and every major title in the past year, has had download-only content in it right from the start. And by the way, Sony isn't the only one doing this.
Either you're paid for your opinion, or you're being obtuse on a level that is reaching record heights. Net Neutrality: make sure that the corporations who control the infrastructure do not abuse their control. SOPA: corporations get to control who says what and how on the Internet, without any interference from due process, free speech or the fact that they didn't pay into building the Internet.
It's a perfectly consistent position. The fact that you refuse to consider that says more about you than about anyone else.
Actually, satellites suck for observation. People know where they are, it is very well known when they pass overhead of a sensitive area, and retasking them is a huge undertaking that can be done only a limited number of times. If there'd be something that the military could put up at a moments notice, keep up for a near infinite time and control in real-time what it is looking at, they'd do so in a heartbeat. And the reason they want 2-legged robots (or any multi-legged version) is because wheels are very limited in their capability for crossing rough terrain. Multi-legged robots of all sizes are another wet dream for the military - primarily because boots on the ground becomes metal feet on the ground.
Hey, you're late to your Google bashing. Don't let that happen again. A) It's called PCI compliance. They are PCI compliant. Whether the standard is a good one is a different question. B) A more detailed description of the problem is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2576938&cid=38397406 Please compare and contrast with how Microsoft is approaching the problem.
I had a nice long post written, but Slashdot ate it. So I'll leave it with a challenge and the TLDR version.
TLDR: your examples ignore and paper over the complexities that are the difference between a study that yields useful data and one that comes with the caveat "if you're doing anything serious with this, you're crazy".
Challenge: take your study examples to any research group, and see what they say.
And the way to analyze an entire population is in two ways: you either measure the entire population, or you create a subset of the population that is representative of the entire population - i.e., you create a controlled subgroup. And by the way, creating a well-randomized subgroup is hard work. If you don't, you have lots of anecdotes and no data.
If we asked everyone what their kid wanted for Christmas and the answer is iPhones, then that is data.
The only data set you have is the one of what kids want for Christmas. And you better make sure you ask either every kid known, create a sufficiently large random sample that subsequent samplings will not change the outcome much, or you create well-defined subgroup that you hope provides interesting information. If you don't, you merely have a large set of anecdotes.
If we asked everyone on slashdot, then the result is still data except rather than specifying controls we simply specify the shortcomings of the data and replace "everyone" with "slashdot users".
Assuming, of course, that you actually ask ALL slashdot users - or again, a nicely randomized subset thereof. Do you know why the slashdot poll comes with the caveat "if you do anything serious with it, you're crazy"? It's not just because it's trivial to game the poll. It's also because the people who created the poll understand the difference between data and anecdotes.
TLDR: your simple examples paper over the details that are the difference between a well-crafted study that yields data, and a bunch of anecdotes that come with the warning "if you do anything serious with this, you're crazy".
The plural of anecdote is NOT data. Data implies a controlled set of information that can be plotted against a single (or at least a few known) variables. An anecdote has no control of its variance, which makes it impossible to compare to other randomly collected anecdotes.
Yup. Think there's a fuss about who owns the water in a river (which, btw, is the reason China is in Tibet and will never leave)? It's gonna be worse when people try to make clouds rain in a place that they would normally just pass over. At least, with a river, it's pretty obvious if someone is diverting massive amounts of it. But with rain-making machines, it's generally hard to tell that something out of the ordinary did take place. Add some cross-border animosity to the mix, and suddenly Twain's quip about whiskey and water is going to be more true than ever.
The reason suicide used to be frowned upon was because it was an easy way out of a shit life. Being an abused peasant in, oh, 1200 Europe was not fun. Without a dogmatic "No" to suicide, I'm sure societies would have had a harder time to develop. Now, it's frowned upon because suicide is a waste of invested resources, eminently preventable and generally not justified. Pretty much all suicide cases I'm aware have at their root abuse that results in poor coping mechanisms. Yes, this includes the morons who first off their family, then themselves.
Suicide should be prevented not because life is precious, but because it's a shitty answer to your problems.
Here's the difference between you and some rabid fanboys: rabid fanboys can in theory be argued with. They at least fit into the format of putting forth an argument that can stand on its own merits, and they in theory could change their mind when presented with counterarguments. In essence, there's the chance of an actual debate taking place. In practice, it's a different story, because fanboys tie their self-worth to how awesome a company is, and will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend their support for a company.
However, a PR droid like you is incapable of engaging in an honest debate. You are paid to advocate a position, regardless of its truth, value to me or to society. The best you can do is hang some valid arguments onto your advertisement. Which is fine and dandy, if there's a way for me to avoid said advertisement. I use adblock because I find most ads to be content and value-less. Your ads that are masquerading as comments are similarly useless to me, because by definition, they are not based on a rational underpinning.
Likewise, people sometimes have an axe to grind or just doesn't like some company - like here on Slashdot that would be Microsoft - and say anything bad about them even if it isn't true. So some good crowdturfing just adjust that side of things and they both stay in balance.
I love your justification for your job. So because there are some trolls that already bring down the quality of the discussion, the right approach is to bring countertrolls in that further degrade the discussion?
For anyone who is wondering what is wrong with letting paid PR droids post without an "ad" tag, this is it: by their own admission, the best they can do is to add countertrolls to a discussion.They will degrade the signal-to-noise ratio of a site.
Nevermind, looks like you're a Randian, with some white, christian persecution complex thrown in. Nothing good's going to come from continuing the discussion.
No, I posted their "advertise with us" marketing page, catering to corporate sponsors just like any other media conglomerate, and I posted the "story" that was basically nothing but an advertisement for a corporate sponsor. There are many other similar examples, but if you're just going to ignore everything, not much point in posting more links, is there?
Shocking. An organization is providing information on how to give them money. Where do they come up with those ideas? They should just run on rainbows and unicorn farts. The key part to your claim is how much money the organization gets overall. Otherwise, you might as well argue that even if they got $10 for mentioning Joe the plumber's business during the traffic check, Joe the Plumber is controlling their material. The link you provided was to an mp3 on some random blogger's site. Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that, especially since most NPR stories have transcripts.
They lump "contributions and membership fees" all in one big category, no telling where any of it is coming from.
How does it go? Better be quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it? Contributions and membership fees are from individuals. Underwriting is from corporate sponsors. English and donation-lingo fail.
That's entirely irrelevant, and, again exactly the same model as the other media outlets. Fox News will not remain on the air if people stop watching.
Wait - consuming free content is the same as paying for it? Holy crap, you just went off the deep end. In one case, the audience is paying cold, hard cash to keep content on the air. In the other.... they aren't. Which is which? I know, it's a hard question, I'll give you some time. Maybe ask your mom for some help.
Kind of like how there are millions of people voting for representatives in the US congress, AND providing small contributions to campaigns, but somehow the only ones influencing legislation are the 1% with access and BIG contributions.
1) Provide a breakdown of who provides how much cash. I'll concede the point if you can show me a winning campaign where there is an accounted 2:1 ratio between private donors of less than $500 and corporate donors, or individuals contributing more than $500. Winner must have a record where decisions break more than 1:2 in corporate favor. Include SuperPACs as well, along with groups running ads supporting the candidate by name. 2) Access is key. Compare and contrast how lobbyists access politicians, and how corporations access NPR program managers. Provide citations from some organization with a research arm. I'll accept a blogger who can support their claims with documentation.
Yeah, Real life is hard. Suck it up and support your claims.
Anything short of that, and you're making some pretty significant claims with zero backing. Which, I guess, I should expect by now.
My point is that NPR is compromised, and not better than any other mainstream media outlet.
So far, the only thing you've done is claimed a point. Your internal logic is contradictory, and you're lacking evidence. I'm sorry I'm neither convinced nor impressed.
Well whatever they are doing, it's apparent that NPR likes that corporate money and will do whatever a major sponsor tells them to.
[Citation Needed]. Accepting donations is not the same as work for hire.
And in any case, it's irrelevant, because that funding comes with no strings, because all those individual donors still get NO influence in the programming, and the NPR producers DO NOT CARE about them, and ONLY listen to what their corporate sponsors want.
[Citation Needed][Logic Failure][Economics Failure] If donors stop donating, public radio goes under. Donors stop donating when programs don't appeal to them. Therefore, public radio has to cater to what the donors want to hear. Especially since no public radio station can survive on ads alone. The donation comes with the string of "if you don't keep providing the content I want, I will stop donating."
It's not "escaping rules of capitalism", it's just that one entity with many thousands of dollars can buy whatever programming they want, but lots of people in aggregate just don't have any influence or voice whatsoever, and are left screwed out of the pittance they've donated.
And again, you're claiming that NPR is the only entity in the world that is completely impervious to the wishes of the majority of its paying customers. Plus, thousands of dollars for a radio spot is a pittance, compared to the endowments that come from the various Hewlett and Packard foundations.
There's certainly no reason for you not to understand that, and there are only two reasons why you would claim ignorance: either you are a shill for NPR, or you are stupid.
Glass houses, first stones, and all that. You're the one who thinks that the group contributing 30% to an organizations bottom line has more pull than the one contributing 60%. Not to mention I'd rather be stupid than willfully ignorant. One's a genetic flaw, the other is a character flaw.
Wait - so according to you, the only time that money buys advertising is when it comes from a corporation? But that money from any other source is just funneled into their personal propaganda fund? I wasn't aware that corporations use special money that gives them somehow more influence. Furthermore, you do realize that individuals provide twice as much money as corporations?
So either you are arguing that public radio is the only institution that can escape the basic rules of capitalism, or that there's something special about the money that comes from corporations. There's also the third option that you're just engaging in mental gymnastics to justify your position, but I'd just be repeating myself.
One thing I find interesting: the amount of arguments that boil down to "oranges and apples are identical, so they all do the same thing". I don't know whether those arguments come more from laziness, stupidity, or just mental gymnastics to justify apathy.
Indeed. Going by the logic of the people who generally put forward the notion that the MSM is liberal, the MSM should actually be wholly conservative. After all, they are owned by profit-making corporations, and therefore should be staunchly for standard conservative platforms: lower taxes, less social welfare, corporate personhood, less regulation, more for the "job-creators", foreign imperialism funded by deficit-spending... but we don't hear that.
Alternatively, there's the argument that the MSM is not interested in the truth, but just in giving the people what they want. If the MSM is indeed liberal, that means that the majority of Americans are liberal.
Either way, conservatives are falling over their own logic if they claim the MSM is liberal.
You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.
Too hard? Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a solution, rather than just whine.
For your reference, Public radio stations (at least mine) are approximately 30% compromised by corporations, 8% by the state government, 2% by the federal government, and 60% by the listening public.
To paraphrase Asimov, to think that corporate media and public radio are equally compromised is to be more wrong than if you'd think just one of them was compromised.
Yes, when you're a large country with problems, it's enticing to think that breaking it will solve all the large country problems. You know what you're going to get instead? Problems with lotsa small countries. Like, I don't know, continent-wide wars between states that think they're really so different from the others.
You might want to look at the reason behind the foundation of the EU. It has nothing to do with economic advantage, and all with 3000 years of near constant war.
What the hell does your dick-waving have to do with the fact that you are indeed comparing apples and oranges? Yes, the US isn't the shining beacon of hope, freedom and liberty it thinks it is. But it is still a very, very far cry from the autocratic and kleptocratic country that is Russia. Comparing the two and implying that the US is somehow on the same level of government mismanagement, anarchy and oligarchic abuses of power makes me think you haven't spent enough time in Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the problem with the current situation: it's not that the people for this travesty (and it truly is one) are merely misguided and mistaken. They fully understand that the current legislation will break the Internet, because that is their goal. Let me repeat that, just for emphasis: these senators and representatives fully intend on breaking the Internet and turning it into cable TV.
Why? Isn't the Internet this awesome engine of growth, revolutionizing communications across the world? Yes, but that's not the part that matters. What matters is who makes money off of it, and who screams the loudest.And the people who scream the loudest and who are the most impacted by the Internet are all the old media and power structures. The Internet is their guillotine, and they will do everything they can do stay alive. The easiest way to do this is to influence, subtly or less so, the legislators who ultimately are in charge of how things work in this world.
That's why you hear statements like "I don't understand the technical details, and I don't care". These people truly do not care that they are breaking the Internet, because that is their goal. That's why arguing that the internet will be broken by SOPA and PROTECT IP is a complete waste of time. You want to talk to these legislators? Either pull out bigger donating and campaigning guns than the old media elite, or pull out arguments that counter the ones from the old media: that the current Internet is destroying value, destroying content makers' ability to make money, etc.
Dude, stick to your script of bashing google.You can't tell a Democracy from a direct Democracy from a Republic. You can't tell free speech from a majority voting system, and think that because something isn't perfect, it should be tossed out. And finally, you just make up shit when you say "and would likely even attempt to make law to kill them".
In short, you're either a giant troll, or an even bigger moron. Your Google bashing is pretty subtle at this point, but the rest is really junky.
Sony doesn't hate pirates, because pirates are cheap and never pay for anything. Sony does hate the second-hate market though, because these people are willing to pay money for a game, but Sony doesn't see a red cent of it.
That's why nearly all recent games, and every major title in the past year, has had download-only content in it right from the start. And by the way, Sony isn't the only one doing this.
Either you're paid for your opinion, or you're being obtuse on a level that is reaching record heights.
Net Neutrality: make sure that the corporations who control the infrastructure do not abuse their control.
SOPA: corporations get to control who says what and how on the Internet, without any interference from due process, free speech or the fact that they didn't pay into building the Internet.
It's a perfectly consistent position. The fact that you refuse to consider that says more about you than about anyone else.
Actually, satellites suck for observation. People know where they are, it is very well known when they pass overhead of a sensitive area, and retasking them is a huge undertaking that can be done only a limited number of times. If there'd be something that the military could put up at a moments notice, keep up for a near infinite time and control in real-time what it is looking at, they'd do so in a heartbeat.
And the reason they want 2-legged robots (or any multi-legged version) is because wheels are very limited in their capability for crossing rough terrain. Multi-legged robots of all sizes are another wet dream for the military - primarily because boots on the ground becomes metal feet on the ground.
Does your boss know you didn't get first post in an obvious google bashing thread? You're slow, kid.
Hey, you're late to your Google bashing. Don't let that happen again.
A) It's called PCI compliance. They are PCI compliant. Whether the standard is a good one is a different question.
B) A more detailed description of the problem is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2576938&cid=38397406 Please compare and contrast with how Microsoft is approaching the problem.
I had a nice long post written, but Slashdot ate it. So I'll leave it with a challenge and the TLDR version.
TLDR: your examples ignore and paper over the complexities that are the difference between a study that yields useful data and one that comes with the caveat "if you're doing anything serious with this, you're crazy".
Challenge: take your study examples to any research group, and see what they say.
And the way to analyze an entire population is in two ways: you either measure the entire population, or you create a subset of the population that is representative of the entire population - i.e., you create a controlled subgroup. And by the way, creating a well-randomized subgroup is hard work. If you don't, you have lots of anecdotes and no data.
If we asked everyone what their kid wanted for Christmas and the answer is iPhones, then that is data.
The only data set you have is the one of what kids want for Christmas. And you better make sure you ask either every kid known, create a sufficiently large random sample that subsequent samplings will not change the outcome much, or you create well-defined subgroup that you hope provides interesting information. If you don't, you merely have a large set of anecdotes.
If we asked everyone on slashdot, then the result is still data except rather than specifying controls we simply specify the shortcomings of the data and replace "everyone" with "slashdot users".
Assuming, of course, that you actually ask ALL slashdot users - or again, a nicely randomized subset thereof. Do you know why the slashdot poll comes with the caveat "if you do anything serious with it, you're crazy"? It's not just because it's trivial to game the poll. It's also because the people who created the poll understand the difference between data and anecdotes.
TLDR: your simple examples paper over the details that are the difference between a well-crafted study that yields data, and a bunch of anecdotes that come with the warning "if you do anything serious with this, you're crazy".
The plural of anecdote is NOT data. Data implies a controlled set of information that can be plotted against a single (or at least a few known) variables. An anecdote has no control of its variance, which makes it impossible to compare to other randomly collected anecdotes.
Ah, good old times... when I got pissed off every time I didn't get the full symphony, and knew I was stuck at 14 kB.
We have 100/100 fiber
I love your fi..., I mean, you. Can I move in?
Yup. Think there's a fuss about who owns the water in a river (which, btw, is the reason China is in Tibet and will never leave)? It's gonna be worse when people try to make clouds rain in a place that they would normally just pass over. At least, with a river, it's pretty obvious if someone is diverting massive amounts of it. But with rain-making machines, it's generally hard to tell that something out of the ordinary did take place. Add some cross-border animosity to the mix, and suddenly Twain's quip about whiskey and water is going to be more true than ever.
The reason suicide used to be frowned upon was because it was an easy way out of a shit life. Being an abused peasant in, oh, 1200 Europe was not fun. Without a dogmatic "No" to suicide, I'm sure societies would have had a harder time to develop. Now, it's frowned upon because suicide is a waste of invested resources, eminently preventable and generally not justified. Pretty much all suicide cases I'm aware have at their root abuse that results in poor coping mechanisms. Yes, this includes the morons who first off their family, then themselves.
Suicide should be prevented not because life is precious, but because it's a shitty answer to your problems.
I'm totally surprised that the guy who officially admits being employed by a Microsoft PR firm thinks that astroturfing is an awesome idea.
Here's the difference between you and some rabid fanboys: rabid fanboys can in theory be argued with. They at least fit into the format of putting forth an argument that can stand on its own merits, and they in theory could change their mind when presented with counterarguments. In essence, there's the chance of an actual debate taking place. In practice, it's a different story, because fanboys tie their self-worth to how awesome a company is, and will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend their support for a company.
However, a PR droid like you is incapable of engaging in an honest debate. You are paid to advocate a position, regardless of its truth, value to me or to society. The best you can do is hang some valid arguments onto your advertisement. Which is fine and dandy, if there's a way for me to avoid said advertisement. I use adblock because I find most ads to be content and value-less. Your ads that are masquerading as comments are similarly useless to me, because by definition, they are not based on a rational underpinning.
Likewise, people sometimes have an axe to grind or just doesn't like some company - like here on Slashdot that would be Microsoft - and say anything bad about them even if it isn't true. So some good crowdturfing just adjust that side of things and they both stay in balance.
I love your justification for your job. So because there are some trolls that already bring down the quality of the discussion, the right approach is to bring countertrolls in that further degrade the discussion?
For anyone who is wondering what is wrong with letting paid PR droids post without an "ad" tag, this is it: by their own admission, the best they can do is to add countertrolls to a discussion.They will degrade the signal-to-noise ratio of a site.
Nevermind, looks like you're a Randian, with some white, christian persecution complex thrown in. Nothing good's going to come from continuing the discussion.
No, I posted their "advertise with us" marketing page, catering to corporate sponsors just like any other media conglomerate, and I posted the "story" that was basically nothing but an advertisement for a corporate sponsor. There are many other similar examples, but if you're just going to ignore everything, not much point in posting more links, is there?
Shocking. An organization is providing information on how to give them money. Where do they come up with those ideas? They should just run on rainbows and unicorn farts. The key part to your claim is how much money the organization gets overall. Otherwise, you might as well argue that even if they got $10 for mentioning Joe the plumber's business during the traffic check, Joe the Plumber is controlling their material.
The link you provided was to an mp3 on some random blogger's site. Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that, especially since most NPR stories have transcripts.
They lump "contributions and membership fees" all in one big category, no telling where any of it is coming from.
How does it go? Better be quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it? Contributions and membership fees are from individuals. Underwriting is from corporate sponsors. English and donation-lingo fail.
That's entirely irrelevant, and, again exactly the same model as the other media outlets. Fox News will not remain on the air if people stop watching.
Wait - consuming free content is the same as paying for it? Holy crap, you just went off the deep end. In one case, the audience is paying cold, hard cash to keep content on the air. In the other.... they aren't. Which is which? I know, it's a hard question, I'll give you some time. Maybe ask your mom for some help.
Kind of like how there are millions of people voting for representatives in the US congress, AND providing small contributions to campaigns, but somehow the only ones influencing legislation are the 1% with access and BIG contributions.
1) Provide a breakdown of who provides how much cash. I'll concede the point if you can show me a winning campaign where there is an accounted 2:1 ratio between private donors of less than $500 and corporate donors, or individuals contributing more than $500. Winner must have a record where decisions break more than 1:2 in corporate favor. Include SuperPACs as well, along with groups running ads supporting the candidate by name.
2) Access is key. Compare and contrast how lobbyists access politicians, and how corporations access NPR program managers. Provide citations from some organization with a research arm. I'll accept a blogger who can support their claims with documentation.
Yeah, Real life is hard. Suck it up and support your claims.
Anything short of that, and you're making some pretty significant claims with zero backing. Which, I guess, I should expect by now.
My point is that NPR is compromised, and not better than any other mainstream media outlet.
So far, the only thing you've done is claimed a point. Your internal logic is contradictory, and you're lacking evidence. I'm sorry I'm neither convinced nor impressed.
Well whatever they are doing, it's apparent that NPR likes that corporate money and will do whatever a major sponsor tells them to.
[Citation Needed]. Accepting donations is not the same as work for hire.
Not sure if I believe that.
There's no need to believe. http://issuu.com/kqed/docs/kqed_annual_report_2010 The report is in an obnoxious format, but check near the graph near the end.
And in any case, it's irrelevant, because that funding comes with no strings, because all those individual donors still get NO influence in the programming, and the NPR producers DO NOT CARE about them, and ONLY listen to what their corporate sponsors want.
[Citation Needed][Logic Failure][Economics Failure]
If donors stop donating, public radio goes under. Donors stop donating when programs don't appeal to them. Therefore, public radio has to cater to what the donors want to hear. Especially since no public radio station can survive on ads alone. The donation comes with the string of "if you don't keep providing the content I want, I will stop donating."
It's not "escaping rules of capitalism", it's just that one entity with many thousands of dollars can buy whatever programming they want, but lots of people in aggregate just don't have any influence or voice whatsoever, and are left screwed out of the pittance they've donated.
And again, you're claiming that NPR is the only entity in the world that is completely impervious to the wishes of the majority of its paying customers. Plus, thousands of dollars for a radio spot is a pittance, compared to the endowments that come from the various Hewlett and Packard foundations.
There's certainly no reason for you not to understand that, and there are only two reasons why you would claim ignorance: either you are a shill for NPR, or you are stupid.
Glass houses, first stones, and all that. You're the one who thinks that the group contributing 30% to an organizations bottom line has more pull than the one contributing 60%. Not to mention I'd rather be stupid than willfully ignorant. One's a genetic flaw, the other is a character flaw.
Wait - so according to you, the only time that money buys advertising is when it comes from a corporation? But that money from any other source is just funneled into their personal propaganda fund? I wasn't aware that corporations use special money that gives them somehow more influence. Furthermore, you do realize that individuals provide twice as much money as corporations?
So either you are arguing that public radio is the only institution that can escape the basic rules of capitalism, or that there's something special about the money that comes from corporations. There's also the third option that you're just engaging in mental gymnastics to justify your position, but I'd just be repeating myself.
One thing I find interesting: the amount of arguments that boil down to "oranges and apples are identical, so they all do the same thing". I don't know whether those arguments come more from laziness, stupidity, or just mental gymnastics to justify apathy.
Indeed. Going by the logic of the people who generally put forward the notion that the MSM is liberal, the MSM should actually be wholly conservative. After all, they are owned by profit-making corporations, and therefore should be staunchly for standard conservative platforms: lower taxes, less social welfare, corporate personhood, less regulation, more for the "job-creators", foreign imperialism funded by deficit-spending... but we don't hear that.
Alternatively, there's the argument that the MSM is not interested in the truth, but just in giving the people what they want. If the MSM is indeed liberal, that means that the majority of Americans are liberal.
Either way, conservatives are falling over their own logic if they claim the MSM is liberal.
You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.
Too hard? Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a solution, rather than just whine.
For your reference, Public radio stations (at least mine) are approximately 30% compromised by corporations, 8% by the state government, 2% by the federal government, and 60% by the listening public.
To paraphrase Asimov, to think that corporate media and public radio are equally compromised is to be more wrong than if you'd think just one of them was compromised.
Yes, when you're a large country with problems, it's enticing to think that breaking it will solve all the large country problems. You know what you're going to get instead? Problems with lotsa small countries. Like, I don't know, continent-wide wars between states that think they're really so different from the others.
You might want to look at the reason behind the foundation of the EU. It has nothing to do with economic advantage, and all with 3000 years of near constant war.
Actually, 100% of the population have two breasts. 50% of the population have just better developed breasts.
What the hell does your dick-waving have to do with the fact that you are indeed comparing apples and oranges? Yes, the US isn't the shining beacon of hope, freedom and liberty it thinks it is. But it is still a very, very far cry from the autocratic and kleptocratic country that is Russia. Comparing the two and implying that the US is somehow on the same level of government mismanagement, anarchy and oligarchic abuses of power makes me think you haven't spent enough time in Russia.