House votes to claw back $9.4bn in spending including from NPR and PBS

submitted by

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/12/npr-pbs…

cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/205556

From US news | The Guardian via this RSS feed

6
29
1

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old
edited

To be clear, they're cutting an extra $9.4 Billion in services. Maybe it's used differently in British English but in the US "claw back" as an idiom generally refers to a win for an underdog party to keep something after a difficult fight, not a privileged party ending access to something.

 reply
8

Whoever wrote the title was just trying to insinuate something extra vicious and violent in nature. It's a common part of our fair and unbiased media.

 reply
6

That's not at all what that means.

Claw back implies money (or something else) has already been sent out and is trying to once again be retrieved from the receiving party.

 reply
2

This is just completely incorrect. Claw back in no way suggests an underdog.

 reply
-1

Informed Americans are a threat to American conservatives and/or Republicans: it's best to keep them stupid.

 reply
2

Comments in politics@lemmy.world

These people just suck. Public broadcasting provides so much to the communities they serve. I'm so angry, just everything that is remotely nice or helpful.

I know that's the point. It just feels awful.

 reply
26
edited

Obviously I hope PBS and NPR get all the funding they need, but maybe it would be better if it all came from listeners.

Edit: to free them from being a political pawn. Not disputing the fact they're an essential service.

 reply
-8

It does. I the form of taxes & donations.

 reply
13

I meant they'd be a bit more free of political pressure if they weren't reliant on money from whoever's in power. Steve Inskeep was the first reporter I heard finally use the word "lie" to refer to something Trump said, but I'd like to widen the tightrope they walk. It would be even better if their funding was enshrined and guaranteed somehow, but I think we know that's impossible.

 reply
-1

Look at how much they actually get. This headline is disingenuous in the sense that they make it seem like pbs and npr are the majority of that.

 reply
5

Oh, I'm well aware (from listening to KCRW) it's only about 1.2 billion. A few wealthy individuals could make that up without a sweat, except they're mostly Wrong Wing and selfish af. I've already doubled my monthly donation, and many would, but will it be enough?

 reply
1

9.4 Billion over what

 reply
5
edited

We increased spending by about 1 TRILLION between military spending increases and tax reductions on the rich.

That's the proportional equivalent of saying we increased spending by $10 and then saved 1 penny from gutting out public news funding that we all depend on for information.

 reply
4

"claw back" steal, it's called stealing. And npr should take them to city under the ftca.

 reply
2
Insert image