In the News II

Quote: kenarman

If you actually bothered doing research instead of presenting your bias you would know this. The NPR once received the Federal money directly. They were terribly managed and overspent for many years. During this time the government bailed them out several times. When they still struggled the Feds changed their funding system. The Feds then started giving the bulk of the funds to the local stations and allowed the NPR to charge the local stations for content, bottom line the Federal funds were still mostly ending up in the hand of the NPR.

Currently the NPR is much better managed and is financially fine, it would be a good time to cut the cord.

So NPR was once Federally funded, but hasn't been in decades? I don't really need to know about 1940s NPR to know that this is not correct with the current structure. We are talking about current funding.

Though for the record I do not think government managed media is a bad thing, so even if you prove NPR gets a tiny amount of money and is managed secretly by the federal government on the backend currently, I would not see it as a negative. (This is not the case, I am just speaking out to your theory.)

NPR is a great organization, and has some of the best content. I am not going to say there is no bias, because any organization managed by humans will inevitably has some degree of bias. But, I think of it like AP, it is about as close to neutral as possible.

Quote: Gandler

So NPR was once Federally funded, but hasn't been in decades? I don't really need to know about 1940s NPR to know that this is not correct with the current structure. We are talking about current funding.

I forgot about your reading comprehension problems, sorry. YES THEY STILL RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING

Quote: AZDuffman

Good for Trump. He sees funding it no longer needed. I just dont get why you bring him up all the time.

If he drops out of the presidential race, I promise never to bring him up again.

Quote: kenarman

I forgot about your reading comprehension problems, sorry. YES THEY STILL RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING

So you keep saying without any evidence, please cite their budget and specify which revenues are direct federal payments. Actually, even better show the Federal Government's budget where the NPR allocation is.

Instead you are making esoteric arguments about historic NPR organizations and how they at one point may have been federally managed.

Even if 4% of it's revenue is from federal money (I doubt it,) this is less than some companies that you seem obsessed with who sell almost exclusively to the federal gov, so.....

Also, you are Canadian, a country that has a wide ranging public network (which is quite good, I love CBC, they make many great programs, big fan of marketplace.) So it is odd that you are fine with a massive organization that is both government funded and managed in your own country, while obsessing if NPR may get a few random dollars from the U.S. government.

This reminds me of Republicans who love RT and AJ, but think that PBS is the bane of the free market....

Quote: kenarman

I forgot about your reading comprehension problems, sorry. YES THEY STILL RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING

kenarman criticizing Gandler’s reading comprehension skills is…. ironic. To say the least.

"At the same time, however, it is misleading for NPR to assert, in rebutting Musk, that it receives but 1 percent of its funding from the federal government. "

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/

The author was on the CPB Board, appointed by President Obama, from 2013-2018

Yes, there is at least some flow of federal funds to NPR, directly or indirectly. I have no problem with there being an NPR, but let them do without any of those funds and go from there if they are not at least trying to be "umpires" and not "cheerleaders." I would never expect perfection in that attempt; only to have both sides of an argument complain a little about their coverage, which is usually a sign they are reporting correctly. Reporting and opinion are different. If they report fairly but someone has an opinion that is left or right, I would be fine with it. I just don't have to agree.

Quote: rxwine

NPR can cover topics of public concern that would not turn a profit, that the-for-profit companies won't bother with because it isn't sensational enough, or too boring to keep ratings up.

Not-for-profit organizations exist with and without government funding. Operating with 1%-4% less (if you believe the numbers that you can easily find) would not kill NPR. If they stayed in the lane of fair coverage and reporting topics of public concern, they may even become more likely to get donations from a broader spectrum of people.

I think I read a comment from someone about public funding and colleges. On the surface, I have no issue with that. The idea is that a college should encourage learning, including the ability to listen to varying points of view and have the learners form their own opinions. We are far from that model and colleges.

It is stupid to shut down speech from one side or the other. Let the speaker show their cards and, if the message is repugnant, then the discussion on the campus turns to that issue and not just protest without really knowing what the speaker has to say. Letting a controversial speaker talk is a better way to let people see the flaws in their arguments than barring them from talking.

Biden has no choice since he's already tripled down on the EV scam.

What a loser.


This is the type of person you'd want to fight in a war.

Imagine using EV tanks and having to charge them up out in the field with missiles landing all around.


--------------------

With Strategic Petroleum Reserve at Historic Lows, Biden Cancels Replenishment Order

Apr. 14, 2024
.
.
.
“When former president Donald Trump attempted to fill the SPR to the brim when oil prices were at a rock-bottom price of $24 a barrel, congressional Democrats blocked the purchase, claiming it would be an oil-industry bailout,” the outlet reported.
.
.
.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/strategic-petroleum-reserve-historic-lows-biden-cancels-replenishment/

---------------------

Quote: DoubleGold

Biden has no choice since he's already tripled down on the EV scam.

What a loser.


This is the type of person you'd want to fight in a war.

Imaging using EV tanks and having to charge them up out in the field with missiles landing all around.

The designs for the new generation of AbramsX battle tank has a proposed hybrid engine. War planners are actually looking forward to it. It would allow the tank to sit under cover and still use its sesnors and equipment in complete silence to monitor the enemy and its surroundings.

Quote: GenoDRPh

The designs for the new generation of AbramsX battle tank has a proposed hybrid engine. War planners are actually looking forward to it. It would allow the tank to sit under cover and still use its sesnors and equipment in complete silence to monitor the enemy and its surroundings.

Besides raping the Earth for battery materials, where would the electricity come from?

Fossil fuels.

So they'd rape the Earth, lose conversion efficiency, plus have the cost of super-high priced fossil fuels as the result of less sales volume.

Like $500 per barrel, at least.

He'd be in a circle-jerk.

Quote: GenoDRPh

The designs for the new generation of AbramsX battle tank has a proposed hybrid engine. War planners are actually looking forward to it. It would allow the tank to sit under cover and still use its sesnors and equipment in complete silence to monitor the enemy and its surroundings.

Kind of hard to believe tanks can’t do that now.