NPR’s CEO: truth is a distraction in the way of getting things done

[Ken]

I used to work in public broadcasting and the idea they only get 1% of their funding from the state is a fiction.

Please provide verifiable facts to support your claim.

Here are some sources that are probably reliable. I haven't studied them yet. My claim may or may not be true ;-> I think these contain the evidence to find out.

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742 ... o-finances

https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials

Sorry, Boot, not playing your game by your rules.

When I worked in public broadcasting, my job was funded at its origin by federal spending for “parenting” at HHS. This took the form of grants to a private foundation that in turn made grants to a public broadcaster which in turn funded my position.

Pretty much the whole thing works that way although private foundations and corporate money are significant too. I had to fill out lots of (pointless) paperwork for the foundation to then turn into the government to show how they were supporting “parenting”. (My actual job duties involved working in the PBS Kids website.)

I would not trust NPR or CPB’s marketing materials to tell you the real story.

NPR gets about 1% of its funding from the federal government.

But Public Broadcasting is not the same as NPR. Individual stations secure their own funding sources and then subscribe to NPR as their news service. Some stations are university owned, others are independent. Most receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is also separate from NPR.

So it depends on the question you are asking. NPR (the news agency) does get only about 1% of funding from the federal government. But individual stations may receive more.

[Josh]

Yes, NPR gets paid by member stations which in turn generally get paid from public funding sources. So NPR can claim "we don't get funding from the federal government" when in reality a majority of their funding is from state sources.

This is the same kind of rampant dishonesty and corruption you expect to see in a place like Russia.

[temporal1]

If it were truly 1% there would be no need for ongoing gov funding.
Except that legal protections that come along with funding may be priceless.

It may be similar/worse with Planned Parenthood.

“truth is a distraction in the way of” .. getting what we want.

Just added elsewhere:

When Jesus was physically here on earth he bluntly and publicly called out the Pharisees for their legalistic attitude toward the law (twisting it to allow them to do what they wanted to do). The things he called them down for were what they considered "disputable matters."

John the Baptist bluntly called out Herod for his adultery and lost his head as a result.
I expect Herod had convinced himself that what he had done was OK.

[Josh]

If it were truly 1% there would be no need for ongoing gov funding.

Right. Why don’t they just commit to not taking a penny of any government funding?

Except that legal protections that come along with funding may be priceless.

It may be similar/worse with Planned Parenthood.

“truth is a distraction in the way of” .. getting what we want.

Just added elsewhere:

When Jesus was physically here on earth he bluntly and publicly called out the Pharisees for their legalistic attitude toward the law (twisting it to allow them to do what they wanted to do). The things he called them down for were what they considered "disputable matters."

John the Baptist bluntly called out Herod for his adultery and lost his head as a result.
I expect Herod had convinced himself that what he had done was OK.

In fairness to NPR, at least they aren’t driving around mobile baby-murder RVs.

[temporal1]

If it were truly 1% there would be no need for ongoing gov funding.

Right. Why don’t they just commit to not taking a penny of any government funding?

Except that legal protections that come along with funding may be priceless.

It may be similar/worse with Planned Parenthood.

“truth is a distraction in the way of” .. getting what we want.

Just added elsewhere:

When Jesus was physically here on earth he bluntly and publicly called out the Pharisees for their legalistic attitude toward the law (twisting it to allow them to do what they wanted to do). The things he called them down for were what they considered "disputable matters."

John the Baptist bluntly called out Herod for his adultery and lost his head as a result.
I expect Herod had convinced himself that what he had done was OK.

In fairness to NPR, at least they aren’t driving around mobile baby-murder RVs.

Presumably, in 100% lockstep.
viewtopic.php?t=7102

[barnhart]

I listened to it as the opening post suggested, and I generally agree with it, at least with the broad points. When she talks about "truths", she is distinguishing between ontological truth and epistemological truth, which is an important distinction.

Apostle Paul did this when he preached at Mars Hill, entering in to worldview of his interlocutors, finding a common ground and preaching about the unknown God. This is the skill behind Jesus' teaching to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves", to understand how the people around you think without allowing it to take over your worldview.

About 3/4 of the way through she mentions the alternative to considering your opponent's worldview, that discussion can no longer be about ideas or facts but it devolves to discussing the identities and biases of people we disagree with. I think that describes a lot of what occurs on MN.

From my perspective, Anabaptists should be the group with a historical memory about the demand for universal ontological truth. That is what burns people at the stake.

[Josh]

Anabaptists are actually people who decided to believe Jesus meant what he said in the Bible without the idea there are different “truths” for different people.

[Ken]

Anabaptists are actually people who decided to believe Jesus meant what he said in the Bible without the idea there are different “truths” for different people.

I suppose that is why Anabaptists all agree on forms of baptism, divorce and remarriage, eschatology, dress, and (checks notes) voting.

And why schisms have never been a thing in the Anabaptist world.

[Josh]

The fact two people don’t agree on something doesn’t mean there isn’t a correct answer or that truth doesn’t exist.

[Bootstrap]

Anabaptists are actually people who decided to believe Jesus meant what he said in the Bible without the idea there are different “truths” for different people.

Both the early Anabaptists and the people who killed the early Anabaptists agreed on that. They disagreed on what Jesus actually meant in the Bible. Dramatic torture and executions showed just how much our persecutors cared about "truth" as they understood it.

Shouting "truth" at the top of our lungs doesn't solve that problem. Careful study, together, with a willingness to understand the other's point of view can at least help solve that problem. Especially if we do it prayerfully, with discernment.