4 ms·

Ok. I appreciate the response, but...this narrative is not even wrong. I mean that with all respect. The WSJ is a good place to look for tendentious coverage.

Ok. I appreciate the response, but...this narrative is not even wrong. I mean that with all respect. The WSJ is a good place to look for tendentious coverage. NPR- it certainly has a theory of government- that it should exist, be functional, and serve the public good. The people who work there would make that argument independent of the source of funding and in fact are inspired by the degree to which their funding comes directly from their listeners. Which is what it does. Single digit grants for non-profits are come and go. There was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when things were different, but Joan Kroc helped changed that, as much or more than that idiot Reagan. Best wishes to you.

baryphonic 3y ago
> NPR- it certainly has a theory of government-... What does NPR's "theory of government" have to do with anything? > Single digit grants for non-profits are come and go. Let me point out again the CPB allocates a relatively predictable (and monotonically increasing) budget of grants to local public broadcasting stations, and a certain percentage of those grants by law must be used to license NPR programming. CPB is funded by the federal government. It's simply not true that public radio stations and NPR are worrying whether the feds will fund them next year. If ~11% of federal funding is so irrelevant to NPR, why do they need it at all? > The people who work there would make that argument independent of the source of funding and in fact are inspired by the degree to which their funding comes directly from their listeners. Something like 87% of NPR listeners lean toward voting Democrat. If the argument is that they're satisfying their donors, then that suggest NPR is much more biased than if it was simply doing the duty of Congress, each house of which is approximately split in half between Republicans and Democrats. > [T]his narrative is not even wrong. I mean that with all respect. Thank you, I guess? Do you have any issues with the facts or inferences I actually pointed out in my argument? Did I cherry-pick some facts? Are there contrary facts which undermine my argument? Is there a flaw in my logic?

baryphonic 3y ago

> NPR- it certainly has a theory of government-... What does NPR's "theory of government" have to do with anything? > Single digit grants for non-profits are come and go. Let me point out again the CPB allocates a relatively predictable (and monotonically increasing) budget of grants to local public broadcasting stations, and a certain percentage of those grants by law must be used to license NPR programming. CPB is funded by the federal government. It's simply not true that public radio stations and NPR are worrying whether the feds will fund them next year. If ~11% of federal funding is so irrelevant to NPR, why do they need it at all? > The people who work there would make that argument independent of the source of funding and in fact are inspired by the degree to which their funding comes directly from their listeners. Something like 87% of NPR listeners lean toward voting Democrat. If the argument is that they're satisfying their donors, then that suggest NPR is much more biased than if it was simply doing the duty of Congress, each house of which is approximately split in half between Republicans and Democrats. > [T]his narrative is not even wrong. I mean that with all respect. Thank you, I guess? Do you have any issues with the facts or inferences I actually pointed out in my argument? Did I cherry-pick some facts? Are there contrary facts which undermine my argument? Is there a flaw in my logic?