Bob Ross Inc are not good people. They stole those paintings from his estate to make a buck. (More specifically, they ruthlessly commandeered his image after he died so they could keep making a fortune.)
I’m a big fan of NPR and the quality of their journalism.
But it’s always struck me as odd that their frequent pledge drives suggest the ads they run don’t actually cover their costs.
In effect, each 30-second pledge driver must generate more revenue than a 30-second sponsor ad — which seems like a flaw in their revenue model, where donations are more valuable per minute than their core revenue generating business model.
It's brand advertising itself, precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.' NPR has navigated trust far better than average for the media. A quick search shows some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large.
When media runs non-stop pharmaceutical ads you obviously question their motivation when reporting on pharmaceutical adjacent topics, which are almost invariably neutral to positive. Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding, but if you saw an equivalent amount of annual advertising from the Waltons on NPR, you'd certainly be looking at those articles from a different perspective than somebody who's unaware of said funding.
It's interesting that this is the label you give for that behavior. A more optimistic take is this is just journalistic ethics. I guess it all depends on how much you trust NPR, but like you said "some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large". The nature of your description suggests you might be in the 46% and almost certainly in that 72%.
I agree. When I listen to NPR, I don’t ever get the feeling that they’re trying to sell me something from Walmart, prop up Walmart’s stock, get the Walton family out of a bind, or chase some special interest specific to their family.
NPR, PBS, PRI, unaffiliated local stations, media not owned by large companies, etc. may not push conservative talking points, but they offer a sometimes differ point of view that is interesting or worth exploring. How terrible is that?
When I listen to NPR, I know what their angle will be regarding almost every topic that comes up. I used to listen to them frequently, but they're too ideological, something that people that agree with them often fail to see.
There used to be more nuance 30 years ago, the discussions smarter. It's now boring because it's predictable.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion [...]
Among the top results in your link are: "Pasta meals from Trader Joe's and Walmart may be linked to a deadly listeria outbreak", "Walmart recalls frozen shrimp over potential radioactive contamination", and "A man accused of stabbing 11 people at a Walmart is in Michigan authorities' custody".
I think that’s every just about every news station that’s trying to actually publish news and not full-time pushing some political talking points?
Think about how many Walmarts there are and the representation of people going to Walmart (hint: mostly the bottom 99% of wealth), what concerns they would have, what trouble they would get into. Do you think the Walton family is also the culprit in all crime or world news that is reported? They must be really busy controlling the world if so.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
Their finances are publicly available. [1] Like always in these things it's somewhat obfuscated, but it's likely that viewer contributions are part of the "Contributions of cash and other financial assets" line which was about $40 million. By contrast their revenue from "corporate sponsorships" is $101 million.
In general I don't think impartial centralized media/reporting is possible in the modern era where any source of influence becomes immediately targeted by countless moneyed interests. And it's not like a comic book thing where some guy with slicked hair comes in, drops off a few bags of money and a list of talking points. Rather it's probably more akin to politics where extremely charismatic smooth talkers come in, present their heavily polished point of view, treat you like a king, and then leave a few bags of money on their way out as a no-strings-attached charitable donation to do with as you see fit.
For a slight tangent, I remember when AOC first took office, quite doe eyed, she posted: "Our “bipartisan” Congressional orientation is cohosted by a corporate lobbyist group. Other members have quietly expressed to me their concern that this wasn’t told to us in advance. Lobbyists are here. Goldman Sachs is here. Where‘s labor? Activists? Frontline community leaders?" [2] Those sort of critiques, which I was extremely impressed by at first, somehow disappeared pretty quickly from her. In lieu of that she started doing things like showing up at the $35,000/ticket Meta Gala with a gown emblazoned with "Tax the rich" worth thousands of dollars. I'm positive that in her mind she's still the exact same grass roots outsider fighting against a corrupt system.
Humans are very good at cognitive dissonance and it really ruins any centralized system.
donations from viewers don't come with strings attached, where as advertisers want content that is conducive to the agendas of the advertisers (which generally is something that enables their bottom line, more or less).
That is why donations are better, even if it makes less direct cash.
What NPR affiliate station you listen to? WNYC runs a quarterly week-long pledge drive. The rest of the time you might hear a “funded by listeners like you” drop, but nothing like the regular cadence of commercial radio. The minute measure is not over the same period.
As corporate media demonstrates, depending on ads and therefore, corporations, inevitably leads to compromises in your news coverage. NPR has tried to avoid this.
“Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering”
Is this statement opinion or backed by data?
Either way, I’m not sure you understand the purpose of a free press. A free press gives all audiences an opportunity to find contrarian viewpoints in the media. That’s it. There’s nothing else because that’s all that’s possible.
There’s not some perfect state that exists where all media outlets (Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones) are perfectly neutral.
This is why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are so important.
That's all interesting, but it doesn't really address the point that NPR's coverage is biased by a desire to please its audience. Even though tautologically true for all organizations, it is disingenuous to suggest (as GP is doing) that NPR gets to don a mantle of impartiality because they don't run (some) ads to finance their operation. Despite how hard "NPR has tried to avoid this".
So, sure, pick your favorite partisan news source. But don't try to claim that it's unbiased because it doesn't generate revenue with ads.
Wonderful Bob Ross. For me, he is more than a painter. Probably a psychic therapist too. I use his videos as soothing sessions when I'm feeling low. And the way he creates complex imagery with simple brush pressings and sweeps, is beyond words.
>continues to support the very medium that brought his joy and creativity into American homes
The message is more important than the medium. With the advent of the internet and platforms like YouTube it's easier than ever to get your video, your message, into the homes of America.
Sure, but PBS member stations also function as incubators, in addition to providing a platform. They provide (along with underwriting from 3rd party charitable institutions) artists/intellectuals/entertainers the upfront capital to produce their programming. YouTube isn't going to provide anyone with money upfront to make a show unless they already have a massive following. Mr. Rogers Neighborhood wouldn't exist if WQED hadn't taken a chance on a couple of 20 something's letting them produce Children's Corner in 1958.
It's certainly possible that's less necessary nowadays, given how cheap filming and creating video content is nowadays, but it's worth considering.
Youtube has incubated many multiples the number of creators than PBS member stations despite not providing upfront funding. Most creators don't start out from corporations or business loans.
Imagine YouTube but publicly funded. No horrible AI targetted ads without any restraint. No monopolistic control over half the worlds viewing devices to control what's installed.
When the way of consuming the medium changes, the message it carries changes as well. The reason public broadcasting is so well loved and "special" is that it was something collective (out of necessity). If I don't like charcircuit, I can find a youtube video declaring charcircuit a dangerous enemy combatant. When you are the only game in town, there was a sense of making it somewhat "casual" and we got things like bob ross and mr. rogers neighbourhood.
Wouldn't it be better to let those towers go dark, and await the public outcry, instead of temporarily hiding the effects?
The PBS affiliate stations in most need of federal funding are typically in rural, largely Republican areas. Let their own base tell the party they're not happy about being cut-off from their baseball documentaries and all the educational shows their kids watch.
Someone close to the administration could reopen them "in the interest of national security" or some such rubbish, isn't Larry's son in the media game?
PragerU shorts injected directly in to Sesame Street wasn't on my 2025 bingo card but its not the wildest thing I've seen out of the US this year.
If pbs was only balanced or apolitical. There were several high profile blunders they refused to apologize or change. Would have been the same outcome if things were reversed. Heck, they could have done a pbs right and pbs left channel. But they know better. Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
> Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
As the country rapidly descends into a right wing totalitarian state, it's great that you identified the real culprit: people who complained our country was descending into a right wing totalitarian state.
Ah, yes, you must be comparing NPR to all of the fair and balanced “clear eyed” right wing media we’ve come to know and love. No extremism or bias there whatsoever… /s
Bob Ross Inc are not good people. They stole those paintings from his estate to make a buck. (More specifically, they ruthlessly commandeered his image after he died so they could keep making a fortune.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20250121153258/https://www.theda...
At this point, is there remotely any public money coming into NPR? Is it time for a rename?
I’m a big fan of NPR and the quality of their journalism.
But it’s always struck me as odd that their frequent pledge drives suggest the ads they run don’t actually cover their costs.
In effect, each 30-second pledge driver must generate more revenue than a 30-second sponsor ad — which seems like a flaw in their revenue model, where donations are more valuable per minute than their core revenue generating business model.
It's brand advertising itself, precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.' NPR has navigated trust far better than average for the media. A quick search shows some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large.
When media runs non-stop pharmaceutical ads you obviously question their motivation when reporting on pharmaceutical adjacent topics, which are almost invariably neutral to positive. Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding, but if you saw an equivalent amount of annual advertising from the Waltons on NPR, you'd certainly be looking at those articles from a different perspective than somebody who's unaware of said funding.
[1] - https://www.npr.org/search/?query=walmart&page=1
>It's brand advertising itself...
It's interesting that this is the label you give for that behavior. A more optimistic take is this is just journalistic ethics. I guess it all depends on how much you trust NPR, but like you said "some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large". The nature of your description suggests you might be in the 46% and almost certainly in that 72%.
I agree. When I listen to NPR, I don’t ever get the feeling that they’re trying to sell me something from Walmart, prop up Walmart’s stock, get the Walton family out of a bind, or chase some special interest specific to their family.
NPR, PBS, PRI, unaffiliated local stations, media not owned by large companies, etc. may not push conservative talking points, but they offer a sometimes differ point of view that is interesting or worth exploring. How terrible is that?
When I listen to NPR, I know what their angle will be regarding almost every topic that comes up. I used to listen to them frequently, but they're too ideological, something that people that agree with them often fail to see. There used to be more nuance 30 years ago, the discussions smarter. It's now boring because it's predictable.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion [...] Among the top results in your link are: "Pasta meals from Trader Joe's and Walmart may be linked to a deadly listeria outbreak", "Walmart recalls frozen shrimp over potential radioactive contamination", and "A man accused of stabbing 11 people at a Walmart is in Michigan authorities' custody".
I think that’s every just about every news station that’s trying to actually publish news and not full-time pushing some political talking points?
Think about how many Walmarts there are and the representation of people going to Walmart (hint: mostly the bottom 99% of wealth), what concerns they would have, what trouble they would get into. Do you think the Walton family is also the culprit in all crime or world news that is reported? They must be really busy controlling the world if so.
To be fair, that is neutral to positive coverage of Walmart.
The actual truth is much worse.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
Doesn't
> And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding
Contradict
> precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.'
Here you have one of the biggest companies in the country and one of the richest families and while they do donate they are still only a sliver?
Isn't that what we would want, or are there better models you can suggest?
Their finances are publicly available. [1] Like always in these things it's somewhat obfuscated, but it's likely that viewer contributions are part of the "Contributions of cash and other financial assets" line which was about $40 million. By contrast their revenue from "corporate sponsorships" is $101 million.
In general I don't think impartial centralized media/reporting is possible in the modern era where any source of influence becomes immediately targeted by countless moneyed interests. And it's not like a comic book thing where some guy with slicked hair comes in, drops off a few bags of money and a list of talking points. Rather it's probably more akin to politics where extremely charismatic smooth talkers come in, present their heavily polished point of view, treat you like a king, and then leave a few bags of money on their way out as a no-strings-attached charitable donation to do with as you see fit.
For a slight tangent, I remember when AOC first took office, quite doe eyed, she posted: "Our “bipartisan” Congressional orientation is cohosted by a corporate lobbyist group. Other members have quietly expressed to me their concern that this wasn’t told to us in advance. Lobbyists are here. Goldman Sachs is here. Where‘s labor? Activists? Frontline community leaders?" [2] Those sort of critiques, which I was extremely impressed by at first, somehow disappeared pretty quickly from her. In lieu of that she started doing things like showing up at the $35,000/ticket Meta Gala with a gown emblazoned with "Tax the rich" worth thousands of dollars. I'm positive that in her mind she's still the exact same grass roots outsider fighting against a corrupt system.
Humans are very good at cognitive dissonance and it really ruins any centralized system.
[1] - https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2024/Nati...
[2] - https://x.com/AOC/status/1070764827533078529
donations from viewers don't come with strings attached, where as advertisers want content that is conducive to the agendas of the advertisers (which generally is something that enables their bottom line, more or less).
That is why donations are better, even if it makes less direct cash.
> “valuable per minute”
What NPR affiliate station you listen to? WNYC runs a quarterly week-long pledge drive. The rest of the time you might hear a “funded by listeners like you” drop, but nothing like the regular cadence of commercial radio. The minute measure is not over the same period.
As corporate media demonstrates, depending on ads and therefore, corporations, inevitably leads to compromises in your news coverage. NPR has tried to avoid this.
Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering to the preferences of their audience.
“Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering”
Is this statement opinion or backed by data?
Either way, I’m not sure you understand the purpose of a free press. A free press gives all audiences an opportunity to find contrarian viewpoints in the media. That’s it. There’s nothing else because that’s all that’s possible.
There’s not some perfect state that exists where all media outlets (Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones) are perfectly neutral.
This is why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are so important.
It's obvious, my opinion, and backed by data.
That's all interesting, but it doesn't really address the point that NPR's coverage is biased by a desire to please its audience. Even though tautologically true for all organizations, it is disingenuous to suggest (as GP is doing) that NPR gets to don a mantle of impartiality because they don't run (some) ads to finance their operation. Despite how hard "NPR has tried to avoid this".
So, sure, pick your favorite partisan news source. But don't try to claim that it's unbiased because it doesn't generate revenue with ads.
Related:
It’s nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44284723 - June 2025 (161 comments)
It’s nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27014367 - May 2021 (85 comments)
Wonderful Bob Ross. For me, he is more than a painter. Probably a psychic therapist too. I use his videos as soothing sessions when I'm feeling low. And the way he creates complex imagery with simple brush pressings and sweeps, is beyond words.
>continues to support the very medium that brought his joy and creativity into American homes
The message is more important than the medium. With the advent of the internet and platforms like YouTube it's easier than ever to get your video, your message, into the homes of America.
Sure, but PBS member stations also function as incubators, in addition to providing a platform. They provide (along with underwriting from 3rd party charitable institutions) artists/intellectuals/entertainers the upfront capital to produce their programming. YouTube isn't going to provide anyone with money upfront to make a show unless they already have a massive following. Mr. Rogers Neighborhood wouldn't exist if WQED hadn't taken a chance on a couple of 20 something's letting them produce Children's Corner in 1958.
It's certainly possible that's less necessary nowadays, given how cheap filming and creating video content is nowadays, but it's worth considering.
Youtube has incubated many multiples the number of creators than PBS member stations despite not providing upfront funding. Most creators don't start out from corporations or business loans.
Let’s compare MrBeast with Mr Rogers…
We got Ms Rachel from YouTube, who is genuinely fantastic.
exactly. would veritasium, 3brown1blue, action lab, nile blue/red, up and atom, simone, etc. even exist via the PBS funding model?
The "PBS spacetime" channel exists, so they're doing something right.
which channel is simone? the name is too generic, a search only turns up uninteresting stuff.
Pretty good chance they meant Simone Giertz, who is fantastic:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3KEoMzNz8eYnwBC34RaKCQ
Imagine YouTube but publicly funded. No horrible AI targetted ads without any restraint. No monopolistic control over half the worlds viewing devices to control what's installed.
Instead, public good free informational content.
Now Imagine it costs 100x what it costs google to run, but it has 1/100th the features and is down often.
If everything was geared towards efficiency, there wouldn't be any investigative journalism or open source software.
Everyone would be shooting for their own gain and we would all be worse of as a result.
Why 100x the cost? What features are so important besides functional URLs to videos?
Sharing videos publicly online is hard and Youtube is fake democratization for market capture.
As long as I'm imagining, I'd also like a pony.
When the way of consuming the medium changes, the message it carries changes as well. The reason public broadcasting is so well loved and "special" is that it was something collective (out of necessity). If I don't like charcircuit, I can find a youtube video declaring charcircuit a dangerous enemy combatant. When you are the only game in town, there was a sense of making it somewhat "casual" and we got things like bob ross and mr. rogers neighbourhood.
Wouldn't it be better to let those towers go dark, and await the public outcry, instead of temporarily hiding the effects?
The PBS affiliate stations in most need of federal funding are typically in rural, largely Republican areas. Let their own base tell the party they're not happy about being cut-off from their baseball documentaries and all the educational shows their kids watch.
Or maybe those stations will simply close, never to be reopened, which in the grand scheme of things seems like a worse outcome.
This is the worse outcome, and the more likely one.
Someone close to the administration could reopen them "in the interest of national security" or some such rubbish, isn't Larry's son in the media game?
PragerU shorts injected directly in to Sesame Street wasn't on my 2025 bingo card but its not the wildest thing I've seen out of the US this year.
If pbs was only balanced or apolitical. There were several high profile blunders they refused to apologize or change. Would have been the same outcome if things were reversed. Heck, they could have done a pbs right and pbs left channel. But they know better. Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
> Such is the reason why so many are deserting the left, they’ve drifted way too far left.
As the country rapidly descends into a right wing totalitarian state, it's great that you identified the real culprit: people who complained our country was descending into a right wing totalitarian state.
Ah, yes, you must be comparing NPR to all of the fair and balanced “clear eyed” right wing media we’ve come to know and love. No extremism or bias there whatsoever… /s
Taxpayers don't have to pay for those outlets, though. They're part of this thing called free speech.