adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

NPR's liberal bias: Editor exposes media's lack of viewpoint diversity – USA TODAY

Published

 on


Twenty years ago, conservative journalist and humorist P.J. O’Rourke started an essay in The Atlantic with this anecdote: “Last year, on a long car trip, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh shout. I usually agree with Rush Limbaugh; therefore I usually don’t listen to him. I listen to NPR: ‘World to end − poor and minorities hardest hit.’ I like to argue with the radio.”

It still makes me laugh. 

His dig at NPR is funny because it’s true. And it’s only become more true in the decades since O’Rourke penned those words. 

I’ll admit it. I’ve listened to NPR for a long time. There’s nothing like waking up to its stories and sounds from around the world. And, like O’Rourke did, I seek out points of view that are different from mine. 

In recent years, however, it’s gone from being something I enjoy to something that more often than not leaves me shaking my head. NPR’s obsession with identity, gender and race is ingrained in almost every story.

I’m far from the only one who’s noticed. Criticism also is coming from within. 

NPR is in the hot seat after senior business editor Uri Berliner last week wrote a thoughtful yet damning piece in The Free Press, detailing what’s been going on behind the scenes at a place Berliner has long loved and respected. 

Berliner offers numerous examples of how NPR has moved from objective reporting to activism, and choosing which stories to cover – or ignore – based on which political side could benefit. 

(I’ll give you a hint: It’s usually the Democrats who win.) 

A view of the National Public Radio (NPR) headquarters on North Capitol Street February 22, 2023 in Washington, DC. The broadcaster has suspended senior editor Uri Berliner after he authored an essay last week for The Free Press accusing his employer of liberal bias.

At the heart of Berliner’s criticism is how NPR stopped telling its listeners the news and started telling them “what to think.” And a lot of that boils down to a startling lack of viewpoint diversity among staff. 

As Berliner writes: “Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.”

For a company that boasts about how diversity is a “core value” and central to its “content, hiring, audience and workplace,” this seems to be a huge oversight. 

It’s also one that Berliner says he couldn’t get any of the higher ups at NPR to give a second thought. Thus, Berliner’s decision to write the essay, which has earned him a five-day suspension without pay (at least that’s all … for now). 

I just paid my taxes.Biden’s pandering on student loans will end up costing us all more.

No wonder so many Americans don’t trust the media

It’s not surprising that NPR is disciplining Berliner. After all, he publicly criticized his employer and called out its liberal bias.

What’s more troublesome is that NPR seems set on changing nothing. It has gone on the defensive and appears unable or unwilling to address the problems Berliner laid out. 

This gets to the heart of why trust in the media has declined so rapidly in recent decades. 

A Gallup poll from last year found that only a third (32%) of Americans trust the mass media – including radio, TV and newspapers – a “great deal” or a “fair amount.” This is a precipitous fall from a peak of 72% in 1976. 

And Democrats at 58% are far more willing to say they trust the media to be fair and accurate than Republicans (just 11%). 

Progressives’ bad ideas:High wages, 32-hour workweeks sound great, but there’s a steep price

That should be a wake-up call to these news institutions. While they become more progressive and insulated from other viewpoints and experiences, the American public is much more politically diverse.

They notice what’s happening.

Here’s a solution: Defund NPR

NPR – National Public Radio – isn’t just another media outlet. It’s funded in part by taxpayers, which places it in a different position than say The New York Times, The Washington Post or even my news organization.

Private publications are free to do what they want, although I think more are waking up to the need for more viewpoint diversity. It’s simply a smart business decision to reach a broader audience.

While Berliner argues that NPR still deserves public funding, I disagree. 

He writes: “As the country becomes more fractured, there’s still a need for a public institution where stories are told and viewpoints exchanged in good faith.”

Yet, NPR is offering no confidence that it will embrace anything close to the viewpoint diversity that it now lacks. Its new CEO, Katherine Maher, is getting attention because of social media posts she made before she was hired, including calling former President Donald Trump a “racist sociopath” and boasting of wearing a Joe Biden campaign hat in public.

That doesn’t bode well. 

If NPR wants to double down on its woke mission, fine. But it shouldn’t do it on my dime – or that of other taxpayers. 

NPR claims that “federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.”

It’s not easy to get a set figure of how much taxpayer money actually flows to NPR, but it’s a sizable sum. While NPR likes to say that just a fraction of its funding comes directly from the federal government, that belies how much it gets indirectly from local stations who pay in part with federal grants for NPR’s flagship content. 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides the grants, gets about $500 million a year from Congress.

That should end. 

I hope NPR takes this moment to consider how “public radio” could better reflect a politically diverse country. But its support should no longer come from American taxpayers. 

Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

 on

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

 on

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

 on

Tech News in Canada

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending