4 ms·

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... 31% of their funding comes from m

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... 31% of their funding comes from member stations. 13% of member station funding comes from government sources. In total that would make about 31% * 13% = 4%.

fortuna86 4y ago
> 13% of member station funding comes from government sources What is the source of this number? Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  The source is the document in the hyperlink at the start of the comment.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    Got it, you added up 8 and 5. Question remains: > Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  It doesn't really change anything, either way NPR have stated that federal funding is essential to their operation. Doesn't seem outlandish to call them government funded if the government is funding essential operations. Some of the same people who go on ad nauseam about how Tesla and SpaceX have received government funding are curiously resistant to the idea though.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    > It doesn't really change anything, either way NPR have stated that federal funding is essential to their operation. Every organization on earth refers to every penny of its budget as "essential" as to not lose any of it. Obviously they could still exist and find a way to replace 1% of their total budget if necessary.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      > Every organization on earth refers to every penny of its budget as "essential" as to not lose any of it. Untrue. > Obviously they could still exist and find a way to replace 1% of their total budget if necessary. They chose to represent themselves as having their essential operations funded by the government. Even if that was a lie, perceptions are very important when it comes to conflicts of interest, transparency, public funding, politics, and independence. The entire basis of their protest to Twitter is about the perception created by the "government funded" label. So lying to the public about something like that for an allegedly insignificant amount of money would be a singularly idiotic thing for NPR to do.
      - fortuna86 4y ago
        > Untrue Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one? > They chose to represent themselves as having their essential operations funded by the government Again, so they don't lose that funding. I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a misleading label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one? I have been in several situations where I have been asked to prioritize and categorize essential and non-essential funding. Not for public / public funded / government jobs, so it's not necessarily made public. But it obviously happens. If they don't want to outright admit it so openly is one thing, but lying about their operations and public funding is quite another. > Again, so they don't lose that funding. That didn't address the content of my reply. You're just repeating the same thing again lol, so same reply applies. > I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a misleading label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media. The label that might mislead people into believing the government provides essential funding for their operation?

fortuna86 4y ago

> 13% of member station funding comes from government sources What is the source of this number? Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
The source is the document in the hyperlink at the start of the comment.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  Got it, you added up 8 and 5. Question remains: > Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?
throwawaylinux 4y ago
It doesn't really change anything, either way NPR have stated that federal funding is essential to their operation. Doesn't seem outlandish to call them government funded if the government is funding essential operations. Some of the same people who go on ad nauseam about how Tesla and SpaceX have received government funding are curiously resistant to the idea though.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  > It doesn't really change anything, either way NPR have stated that federal funding is essential to their operation. Every organization on earth refers to every penny of its budget as "essential" as to not lose any of it. Obviously they could still exist and find a way to replace 1% of their total budget if necessary.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > Every organization on earth refers to every penny of its budget as "essential" as to not lose any of it. Untrue. > Obviously they could still exist and find a way to replace 1% of their total budget if necessary. They chose to represent themselves as having their essential operations funded by the government. Even if that was a lie, perceptions are very important when it comes to conflicts of interest, transparency, public funding, politics, and independence. The entire basis of their protest to Twitter is about the perception created by the "government funded" label. So lying to the public about something like that for an allegedly insignificant amount of money would be a singularly idiotic thing for NPR to do.
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      > Untrue Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one? > They chose to represent themselves as having their essential operations funded by the government Again, so they don't lose that funding. I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a misleading label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one? I have been in several situations where I have been asked to prioritize and categorize essential and non-essential funding. Not for public / public funded / government jobs, so it's not necessarily made public. But it obviously happens. If they don't want to outright admit it so openly is one thing, but lying about their operations and public funding is quite another. > Again, so they don't lose that funding. That didn't address the content of my reply. You're just repeating the same thing again lol, so same reply applies. > I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a misleading label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media. The label that might mislead people into believing the government provides essential funding for their operation?