398
Judge rules Trump order eliminating NPR, PBS funding is unconstitutional
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
398 points (99.5% liked)
News
37093 readers
2429 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I honestly don't think this is possible.
Who's deciding what counts as "biased" or "unbiased", and how do we ensure there's no corruption there?
How do we determine "the truth" about controversial subjects when general opinion is split?
Even if you did determine a magical method to broadcast exclusively factual information without any spin; the choice of which information gets broadcast inherently introduces bias. You can't put literally everything that happened on Earth in a day on the evening news, so you have to choose and prioritize which information to broadcast, introducing the bias.
I've always thought a better solution would be having news sources be more explicit about their biases, rather than pretending they don't have any, but I realize that just introduces more problems without necessarily fixing anything.
There's a similar problem with defining "pornography", but one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions managed to rule on it, saying "I know it when I see it."
It also doesn't matter whether it's an attainable goal. For a famous current example, the 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." There's famously, and problematically, no exceptions, depending on how you read the "militia" part. Yet how many people are arguing that, for example, violent criminals currently serving prison terms should be allowed weapons inside prisons? The whole constitution, as is, is only followed as much as it can reasonably be followed.
No, the important thing isn't whether a lofty goal can be achieved, but that obvious violations can be detected and punished. And that as long as we have a lofty goal, we can continue to aim to better ourselves and try to achieve the goal at some point in the future.
I appreciate the comprehensive take. So tired of people claiming to know which sources are biased and which aren't, acting as though they are somehow immune to it while everyone who disagrees with them is subject to it. And you are right, there is no great solution except that news needs to be as decentralized as possible, from many independent sources.