4 ms·

The article states "More than 99% of NPR's funds do not come from federal sources" and yet elaborates "NPR ... gets the bulk of its direct financial support fro

by nyerp 3y ago

The article states "More than 99% of NPR's funds do not come from federal sources" and yet elaborates "NPR ... gets the bulk of its direct financial support from two sources: sponsorships and fees paid by hundreds of member stations." How are those member stations funded? Through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives a $465 million federal appropration each year. So can the Federal Government exert pressure through "financial resources" or "indirect political pressure", per the Twitter policy? You bet. Does the NPR model naturally align itself to bigger government with more grant-making power? Definitely. I think Twitter could have come down on either side. It's a grey area. But how could the NPR story fail to mention the $465 million? See also https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... where NPR makes the opposite argument, namely, 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."

vannevar 3y ago
By this same logic, all television networks are "state-affiliated media", because they all depend on local stations that hold federally-granted broadcast licenses. So add Fox Broadcasting, NBC, CBS, etc., etc. to your list.
- stusmall 3y ago
  Also with the same logic Tesla is "state-affiliated". Federal subsidies on sales have been a critical part of their business model. I think people are arguing that is label makes sense are really losing the thread of the point of the label. Is it possible for the Federal government to exert pressure on the organization? Honestly, that's true of any person or organization that has any financial dealings that touch the US. It's really hard to argue in good faith that NPR is a mouth piece of the state like RT or Xinhua.
- krapp 3y ago
  The logic being applied here is the baseline of American conservative logic that all mainstream media, excepting Fox News of course, is controlled by an organized leftist cabal that takes their orders directly from the Democratic Party. They mistrust NPR and PBS in particular (and have for decades,) considering them nothing but organs for Marxist propaganda. As with the "Twitter Files" this is just an attempt to normalize right-wing conspiracy theory under the facade of neutrality.
- revelio 3y ago
  Broadcast licensing isn't the same thing as direct subsidization, though.
  - vannevar 3y ago
    Agreed. Licensing is much more powerful leverage, because there's no alternative. At least PBS stations can appeal to private sources for funding. Licensing power is exclusive to the government.
    - revelio 3y ago
      But in practice (in the USA) broadcast licenses are just a way to manage spectrum and don't get revoked for political reasons. Funding can go up or down depending in order to condition behavior.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
31% of revenue comes from member station fees and 13% of member station fees comes from government funding, so that would mean 13% of 31% or 4% of the total comes from government sources. "State-affiliated" still seems highly inaccurate. Tesla get 3% of its revenue from government carbon credits. Are they labeling Tesla as state-affiliated?
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  But if the CPB stations didn't exist, who would be trying to advertise, excuse me, become a corporate sponsor, with NPR? The network of stations that NPR sells its material to would likely not exist without Federal funding.
  - Rimintil 3y ago
    What-ifs get in the way of the facts. Perhaps we should just not go there since your scenario isn’t applicable to NPR as it stands today.
Dudelander 3y ago
The source you cite points out that only 8% of public radio's funding comes from federal funding, and less than 1% of NPR's budget comes from federal funding. The federal government does not exercise any editorial control over NPR other than by the mechanisms that apply to Fox, CNN, Newsmax, or any other "private" media organization.
- vuln 3y ago
  > The federal government does not exercise any editorial control over NPR other than by the mechanisms that apply to Fox, CNN, Newsmax, or any other "private" media organization. So NPR hires former IC members and then utilizes them to downplay or hype a story? I mean “give an analysis”…
  - dingosity 3y ago
    It turns out that many people leave the intelligence community each year. Many of them move on to other jobs (i.e. - they don't retire, they change jobs.) Some of these jobs are at NPR. What's your point?
    - vuln 3y ago
      Some of those jobs are at NPR and other News Networks. Some of those jobs are at all the social networks… Some of those are at think tanks… It seems like where ever there is a choke point to information you’ll find a bunch of IC members. It’s just a coincidence, I’m sure.
      - Rapzid 3y ago
        Industries interested in intelligence have a high concerntration of former IC members? Wow, so slueth. Such conspire.
    - oska 3y ago
      This is highly disingenuous. Former employees of intelligence agencies have no place in employed, paid roles in corporate or state media, because the possibility that they are still working to advance the agencies propaganda or protect their past actions and present causes is way too high. If they like, they can set up as an independent journalist or commentator, as Ray McGovern has done, where they are invited on as guests or they independently publish their own material. But that's it. No paid commentator/opinion roles, no senior management roles (Jim Baker at Twitter) in the media should be open to them. And any state or corporate media organisation who employs them only confirm their role of being conduits for propaganda.
rcktmrtn 3y ago
> How are those member stations funded? A case quick case study on this for Wisconsin I did recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35294972&p=2#35295817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35294972&p=2#35295817 ... in summary, our station seems to be about 1/3 funded directly by the the government (state+federal). It's obviously simpleminded to claim that NPR is directly and obviously a stooge of the federal government, but trying to deflect the question with the "99% non-federal funds" doesn't convince me of anything.
sometimesjerks 3y ago
I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about how NPR's funding works, and a claim that NPR/NPR affiliated stations receive $465M. First, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives ~$128M for "Public Radio Station and Programming Grants", not NPR or NPR affiliated stations [1]. Second, CPB uses that money for grants to local stations, which then license content from NPR. This model was a direct result of NPR's funding crisis in the 1980's. Additionally, the amount a local station gets from the CPB depends on how large it is, with the average station only receiving 7.2% percent of its annual revenue from CPB grants [1]. Small rural stations get a much larger percent -- and most probably wouldn't be able to function without it hence NPR's "Federal funding is essential to public radio's service" statement. [1]: https://cpb.org/funding https://cpb.org/funding
dingosity 3y ago
I believe you to be high. The US petroleum industry as a whole (and the few individual companies I follow closely) receive a higher percentage of their income as subsidies from the US federal government than NPR does. By this logic, they are more likely to yield to pressure from the US government than NPR and yet Twitter does not label their accounts as "government affiliated." Tesla received $7.5B in federal subsidies last year on $81.4B of revenue. That's about 8 percentage points more federal funding than NPR received. Maybe we should label Tesla's twitter account as "government affiliated." I can't find recent data, but through 2015, SpaceX received $4.9B in government subsidies, and SolarCity received $497M in direct federal subsidies. Maybe they should also be labeled "government affiliated."

by nyerp 3y ago

vannevar 3y ago

By this same logic, all television networks are "state-affiliated media", because they all depend on local stations that hold federally-granted broadcast licenses. So add Fox Broadcasting, NBC, CBS, etc., etc. to your list.

stusmall 3y ago
Also with the same logic Tesla is "state-affiliated". Federal subsidies on sales have been a critical part of their business model. I think people are arguing that is label makes sense are really losing the thread of the point of the label. Is it possible for the Federal government to exert pressure on the organization? Honestly, that's true of any person or organization that has any financial dealings that touch the US. It's really hard to argue in good faith that NPR is a mouth piece of the state like RT or Xinhua.
krapp 3y ago
The logic being applied here is the baseline of American conservative logic that all mainstream media, excepting Fox News of course, is controlled by an organized leftist cabal that takes their orders directly from the Democratic Party. They mistrust NPR and PBS in particular (and have for decades,) considering them nothing but organs for Marxist propaganda. As with the "Twitter Files" this is just an attempt to normalize right-wing conspiracy theory under the facade of neutrality.
revelio 3y ago
Broadcast licensing isn't the same thing as direct subsidization, though.
- vannevar 3y ago
  Agreed. Licensing is much more powerful leverage, because there's no alternative. At least PBS stations can appeal to private sources for funding. Licensing power is exclusive to the government.
  - revelio 3y ago
    But in practice (in the USA) broadcast licenses are just a way to manage spectrum and don't get revoked for political reasons. Funding can go up or down depending in order to condition behavior.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

31% of revenue comes from member station fees and 13% of member station fees comes from government funding, so that would mean 13% of 31% or 4% of the total comes from government sources. "State-affiliated" still seems highly inaccurate. Tesla get 3% of its revenue from government carbon credits. Are they labeling Tesla as state-affiliated?

cool_dude85 3y ago
But if the CPB stations didn't exist, who would be trying to advertise, excuse me, become a corporate sponsor, with NPR? The network of stations that NPR sells its material to would likely not exist without Federal funding.
- Rimintil 3y ago
  What-ifs get in the way of the facts. Perhaps we should just not go there since your scenario isn’t applicable to NPR as it stands today.

Dudelander 3y ago

The source you cite points out that only 8% of public radio's funding comes from federal funding, and less than 1% of NPR's budget comes from federal funding. The federal government does not exercise any editorial control over NPR other than by the mechanisms that apply to Fox, CNN, Newsmax, or any other "private" media organization.

vuln 3y ago
> The federal government does not exercise any editorial control over NPR other than by the mechanisms that apply to Fox, CNN, Newsmax, or any other "private" media organization. So NPR hires former IC members and then utilizes them to downplay or hype a story? I mean “give an analysis”…
- dingosity 3y ago
  It turns out that many people leave the intelligence community each year. Many of them move on to other jobs (i.e. - they don't retire, they change jobs.) Some of these jobs are at NPR. What's your point?
  - vuln 3y ago
    Some of those jobs are at NPR and other News Networks. Some of those jobs are at all the social networks… Some of those are at think tanks… It seems like where ever there is a choke point to information you’ll find a bunch of IC members. It’s just a coincidence, I’m sure.
    - Rapzid 3y ago
      Industries interested in intelligence have a high concerntration of former IC members? Wow, so slueth. Such conspire.
  - oska 3y ago
    This is highly disingenuous. Former employees of intelligence agencies have no place in employed, paid roles in corporate or state media, because the possibility that they are still working to advance the agencies propaganda or protect their past actions and present causes is way too high. If they like, they can set up as an independent journalist or commentator, as Ray McGovern has done, where they are invited on as guests or they independently publish their own material. But that's it. No paid commentator/opinion roles, no senior management roles (Jim Baker at Twitter) in the media should be open to them. And any state or corporate media organisation who employs them only confirm their role of being conduits for propaganda.

rcktmrtn 3y ago

> How are those member stations funded? A case quick case study on this for Wisconsin I did recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35294972&p=2#35295817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35294972&p=2#35295817 ... in summary, our station seems to be about 1/3 funded directly by the the government (state+federal). It's obviously simpleminded to claim that NPR is directly and obviously a stooge of the federal government, but trying to deflect the question with the "99% non-federal funds" doesn't convince me of anything.

sometimesjerks 3y ago

I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about how NPR's funding works, and a claim that NPR/NPR affiliated stations receive $465M. First, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives ~$128M for "Public Radio Station and Programming Grants", not NPR or NPR affiliated stations [1]. Second, CPB uses that money for grants to local stations, which then license content from NPR. This model was a direct result of NPR's funding crisis in the 1980's. Additionally, the amount a local station gets from the CPB depends on how large it is, with the average station only receiving 7.2% percent of its annual revenue from CPB grants [1]. Small rural stations get a much larger percent -- and most probably wouldn't be able to function without it hence NPR's "Federal funding is essential to public radio's service" statement. [1]: https://cpb.org/funding https://cpb.org/funding

dingosity 3y ago

I believe you to be high. The US petroleum industry as a whole (and the few individual companies I follow closely) receive a higher percentage of their income as subsidies from the US federal government than NPR does. By this logic, they are more likely to yield to pressure from the US government than NPR and yet Twitter does not label their accounts as "government affiliated." Tesla received $7.5B in federal subsidies last year on $81.4B of revenue. That's about 8 percentage points more federal funding than NPR received. Maybe we should label Tesla's twitter account as "government affiliated." I can't find recent data, but through 2015, SpaceX received $4.9B in government subsidies, and SolarCity received $497M in direct federal subsidies. Maybe they should also be labeled "government affiliated."