What????

Emphasis on given. They win competitive grants, but there is no federal line item for NPR.

That two percent comes from grants, which I've already covered. It doesn't take too much research to find that out.

 

So how are you saying that ZERO money comes from the government.....when in fact they received 4 billion dollars in tax money since 2001...??

I saw a figure today that 16% of their funding in one way or the other ultimately comes from the taxpayers. I'll stick with my original post, our tax dollars at work.

 

Yes I completely agree with you.

Yes. I'm sure that Mr. Sullivan meant certain areas such as Sesame Street as well.

Oh, you're "sure" that's what he meant ... only he didn't say it.

 

In other words, you're putting words in his mouth (or thoughts in his head) to further your point ...

Oh, you're "sure" that's what he meant ... only he didn't say it.

 

In other words, you're putting words in his mouth (or thoughts in his head) to further your point ...

 

Whatever you say westsider.

Whatever you say westsider.

Your argument simply isn't supported by Sullivan's comments ... like it or not.

Your argument simply isn't supported by Sullivan's comments ... like it or not.

 

 

You're right, Sullivan was comparing any neighborhood, so therefore it is accurate to say that he would mean good or bad neighborhood.

After watching Fox News this morning and learning of more hateful, vile, mean statements by NPR people, NPR should not receive any government money directly or indirectly.

I also thought that the left said only the right made such intolerate statements, but it seems they are making the vast majority of such statements.

After watching Fox News this morning and learning of more hateful, vile, mean statements by NPR people, NPR should not receive any government money directly or indirectly.

I also thought that the left said only the right made such intolerate statements, but it seems they are making the vast majority of such statements.

"The left" ... as in, the whole bunch? Or just a selected few you would like to portray as representative of "the left?"

I saw a figure today that 16% of their funding in one way or the other ultimately comes from the taxpayers. I'll stick with my original post, our tax dollars at work.

Based upon the information available directly from the NPR website, 16% is entirely feasible.

 

The pie chart I posted in #69 shows 5.8% directly from federal, state and local government sources. 10.1% from CPB (of which, a significant percentage is government funded) and 13.6% from universities which receive federal and state funding as well. The mystery meat on this plate is the "Other" category at 7.6%. It clearly is not private or foundation funding.

 

I find it difficult to process 02Ram54's assertion that NPR is not "given" federal dollars or that "NPR receives NOT ONE SINGLE DIME from the CPB directly" when the NPR website and this chart clearly shows they do. The semantic wrangling point appears to be that competing for and winning grants from the government, CPB, etc. qualifies as "earning" government money. That also would explain the lack of a federal line item for NPR.

 

Bottom line... if NPR proponents insist on minimizing the impact of federal dollars on the day-to-day operation of NPR... it sounds as though NPR has grown beyond the need for federal funding. They shouldn't miss it at all if it is withdrawn... in all forms. I have no doubt that George Soros can more than make up what is describned as a paltry amount. Let him go toe-to-toe with Rupert Murdock. May the best spinmeister win. :thumb:

Based upon the information available directly from the NPR website, 16% is entirely feasible.

 

The pie chart I posted in #69 shows 5.8% directly from federal, state and local government sources. 10.1% from CPB (of which, a significant percentage is government funded) and 13.6% from universities which receive federal and state funding as well. The mystery meat on this plate is the "Other" category at 7.6%. It clearly is not private or foundation funding.

 

I find it difficult to process 02Ram54's assertion that NPR is not "given" federal dollars or that "NPR receives NOT ONE SINGLE DIME from the CPB directly" when the NPR website and this chart clearly shows they do. The semantic wrangling point appears to be that competing for and winning grants from the government, CPB, etc. qualifies as "earning" government money. That also would explain the lack of a federal line item for NPR.

 

Bottom line... if NPR proponents insist on minimizing the impact of federal dollars on the day-to-day operation of NPR... it sounds as though NPR has grown beyond the need for federal funding. They shouldn't miss it at all if it is withdrawn... in all forms. I have no doubt that George Soros can more than make up what is describned as a paltry amount. Let him go toe-to-toe with Rupert Murdock. May the best spinmeister win. :thumb:

Your chart and source are for public radio stations, NOT NPR. Go back and check it.

 

As to your other point, of course even the small percentage that NPR receives in grants, for which they beat out other applicants for (known as winning, which is why I do call it earned but we can drop the semantics if you like) from the CPB (1-3% a year) matters to them, because pound for pound, they have to be the best news organization in the country. NPR's annual budget accounts for $160 million in revenues.

 

What do you think that Fox News has to spend? I do know that their parent corporation measures their gross revenues in the tens of billions.

 

NPR is putting out a first class nationally broadcast product on a shoestring budget. They emphasize that they get the vast majority of their revenues elsewhere because they don't want their REAL benefactors, private donors, to feel like they don't need to send in those checks. This is the same reason that the Fall Membership Drive for public radio stations in Louisville, just completed (in record time!) emphasized that contributions from listeners and community support was the lions share of what keeps them afloat.

Wonder if he would have gotten fired if he said seeing a Christian walking into an abortion clinic made him nervous. My guess is no.

Wonder if he would have gotten fired if he said seeing a Christian walking into an abortion clinic made him nervous. My guess is no.

Really? My guess is yes, considering the national firestorm that comment would have generated would dwarf this one.

 

Of course, since the overwhelming majority of people in this country at least nominally self identify as Christian, that means that the overwhelming majority of people in abortion clinics do, too.

Really? My guess is yes, considering the national firestorm that comment would have generated would dwarf this one.

 

Of course, since the overwhelming majority of people in this country at least nominally self identify as Christian, that means that the overwhelming majority of people in abortion clinics do, too.

I disagree. Wasn't it Rosie who said that Christianity was the reason for all the wars and she never lost her job over it. There wasn't even much of a firestorm about it except from Christians. Most of the national media ignored it.

I disagree. Wasn't it Rosie who said that Christianity was the reason for all the wars and she never lost her job over it. There wasn't even much of a firestorm about it except from Christians. Most of the national media ignored it.

I don't recall that, but I would say that is a very different statement, IMO.