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

[GaryK]

So we really do need ways to discuss things with people who disagree with us. Ways that challenge our own thinking, peeling away the things that keep us from seeing the truth.

What truth are you referring to in the above statement?

[Soloist]

So we really do need ways to discuss things with people who disagree with us. Ways that challenge our own thinking, peeling away the things that keep us from seeing the truth.

What truth are you referring to in the above statement?

So... Boot, when I posted something contrary to your position (news article) that supported Josh's statement, did you challenge your own thinking and peel away what is keeping you from the truth? or is your belief that you have the truth and others need a way to do it?
Why did you ignore the evidence?

[Bootstrap]

\So... Boot, when I posted something contrary to your position (news article) that supported Josh's statement, did you challenge your own thinking and peel away what is keeping you from the truth? or is your belief that you have the truth and others need a way to do it?
Why did you ignore the evidence?

But I didn''t think that what you posted actually supported Josh's statement. I agree with your statement that the 1% figure" really depends on how you look at it. It isn't false, but there are also indirect payments. Regardless, NPR is not a "state sponsored" propaganda outlet like Russia Today.

For instance, here is an early paragraph from your article:

It was tendentious — and inaccurate — for Elon Musk to identify NPR on his Twitter platform as a “government-affiliated” news organization. NPR may have its biases, notably in its story selection, but to class it in the same category as the New China News Agency or, in their day, Pravda or Tass, is both argumentative and absurd. If that were the case, it’s hard to believe the current White House would countenance longtime NPR congressional correspondent Mara Liason’s regular appearances on Fox News.

NPR reported $90 million in revenue from “contracts from customers,” a significant portion of its $279 million and much more than 1 percent. Such revenue was exceeded only by corporate sponsorships, which totaled $121 million. One can think of these funds as federal grants that have been sent from Washington — but returned to it.

So it may be as high as 33%? But that's still nowhere near most of it, and the way it is done, the Federal government has little direct editorial control. One piece of evidence: as sitting presidents, both Trump and Biden hated quite a few NPR stories about them, and they couldn't do anything about.

Putin does not have that kind of problem with Russia Today or Pravda. It's not the same thing at all.

As the author of your article points out in the first paragraph. When he refers to the Elon Musk's claims:

https://apnews.com/article/npr-quits-tw ... 725c9a8839

[Soloist]

But I didn''t think that what you posted actually supported Josh's statement. I agree with your statement that the 1% figure" really depends on how you look at it. It isn't false, but there are also indirect payments. Regardless, NPR is not a "state sponsored" propaganda outlet like Russia Today.

For instance, here is an early paragraph from your article:

It was tendentious — and inaccurate — for Elon Musk to identify NPR on his Twitter platform as a “government-affiliated” news organization. NPR may have its biases, notably in its story selection, but to class it in the same category as the New China News Agency or, in their day, Pravda or Tass, is both argumentative and absurd. If that were the case, it’s hard to believe the current White House would countenance longtime NPR congressional correspondent Mara Liason’s regular appearances on Fox News.

You for all intensive purposes ignored it. For example, your quote from the article shows your bias compared to say the bias the other way around

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. The reality is more complex — and should raise questions for those who care about the future of “public media.”

Also, you are arguing with Josh who said more then 1%, he never said all or even most. So what I posted actually directly does support Josh's statement unless you are going to argue that he claimed higher numbers then he actually did.

NPR reported $90 million in revenue from “contracts from customers,” a significant portion of its $279 million and much more than 1 percent. Such revenue was exceeded only by corporate sponsorships, which totaled $121 million. One can think of these funds as federal grants that have been sent from Washington — but returned to it.

So it may be as high as 33%? But that's still nowhere near most of it, and the way it is done, the Federal government has little direct editorial control. One piece of evidence: as sitting presidents, both Trump and Biden hated quite a few NPR stories about them, and they couldn't do anything about.

Putin does not have that kind of problem with Russia Today or Pravda. It's not the same thing at all.

I don't really care, but to dispute the 1% funding claim and then try to make it about Russia?

Incidentally, NPR fails to be honest about admitting they are state-sponsored media like Xinhua or RT. If she cares so much much about the truth she could start there.

Perhaps you disagree that 33% as you admit is state sponsored. Does it need to be 100% for it to be state sponsored?

About 1% of NPR's budget comes from the federal budget. And I don't think the government tells them what to say. If it did, I don't think the Biden Administration would have allowed some of the very negative things they had to say about Biden as his age-related decline became obvious. I don't think the Trump Administration would have allowed the very negative reporting they did on Trump during his presidency.

Nearly 100% of RT's budget comes directly from the Russian government. And the Russian Government definitely has a lot of say in what is said there.

your claim
Josh's response

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

You then doubled down challenging Josh saying 1% isn't accurate.

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.

You post two random articles you didn't even read.

So... what did Josh say that you believe isn't supported? because it seems like you are specifically focused on the 1% claim until you finally (appear) to have read what I posted. You would think otherwise you could have said that perhaps Josh was right depending on how you view it.

Besides, just because the government supports a broadcasting media doesn't necessarily make it bad, although if you honestly think that money isn't incentive to lie or cover up for the government... You won't believe my stories from the military either.

[Josh]

I'm also curious about this: what is your source for the OP?

The source is her TED Talk. I’m not quite sure what you’re asking? I often listen to Ted talks, particularly from people I disagree with.

But the TED talk was very clear that she was speaking for Wikipedia. It was also clear that NPR did not sponsor the talk. And the TED Talk is quite clear that she believes in objective truth. If you were just looking at the TED talk, how on earth did you reach these false conclusions?

And the false claim that NPR is state-sponsored propaganda like Russia Today is very much Elon Musk's Twitter/X campaign, which has been adopted by right wing political outlets. I don't think you got that from the TED talk. And you know or should know that it is false. I'm sure Trump and Biden would LOVE to have been able to tell NPR to lay off them, but neither President could. Putin can.

So most of the positioning in the OP is not original with you, and it's not from the TED talk. What were you looking at before you wrote the OP? Where did you get this positioning from?

My positioning comes from:

#1, I like to watch Ted talks including this one. Given other discussions on MennoNet right now, it seemed relevant

#2, my opinion on whether or not NPR is state funded media is based on having worked for public broadcasting in a state funded position (laundered through a foundation) 23 years ago, and having generally kept up to date on public broadcasting ever since.

Can you please respect me as an independent person capable of forming his own reasonable, well-informed positions? What does Elon Musk have to do with any of this?

[Bootstrap]

You post two random articles you didn't even read.

Their financial statement, for instance? It takes me quite a while to read financial statements and make sense of them. I was hoping we could make sense of it together. Maybe reading financial reports is instant for you, it's not for me.

You and Ken actually did a good job, together. And what you said was in agreement.

So it may be as high as 33%? But that's still nowhere near most of it, and the way it is done, the Federal government has little direct editorial control. One piece of evidence: as sitting presidents, both Trump and Biden hated quite a few NPR stories about them, and they couldn't do anything about.

Putin does not have that kind of problem with Russia Today or Pravda. It's not the same thing at all.

I don't really care, but to dispute the 1% funding claim and then try to make it about Russia?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you read the OP? The claim was that NPR is equivalent to Russia Today. Which does involve Russia.

I really don't understand what you are getting upset about.

[ken_sylvania]

You post two random articles you didn't even read.

Their financial statement, for instance? It takes me quite a while to read financial statements and make sense of them. I was hoping we could make sense of it together. Maybe reading financial reports is instant for you, it's not for me.

You and Ken actually did a good job, together. And what you said was in agreement.

So it may be as high as 33%? But that's still nowhere near most of it, and the way it is done, the Federal government has little direct editorial control. One piece of evidence: as sitting presidents, both Trump and Biden hated quite a few NPR stories about them, and they couldn't do anything about.

Putin does not have that kind of problem with Russia Today or Pravda. It's not the same thing at all.

I don't really care, but to dispute the 1% funding claim and then try to make it about Russia?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you read the OP? The claim was that NPR is equivalent to Russia Today. Which does involve Russia.

I really don't understand what you are getting upset about.

Who's getting upset?
Is that really the kind of language you think Romans 14 espouses?

[Soloist]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you read the OP? The claim was that NPR is equivalent to Russia Today. Which does involve Russia.

I really don't understand what you are getting upset about.

Oh I’m sorry too, did you not read me challenging your challenge that apparently was wrong and you ignored it?
Now you are saying it was about Russia? Then why pick the funding as the hill to die on?
You sat there and argued with Josh insisting he was wrong unless he gave you proof. I gave you proof, you ignored it and then later said it was about Russia, rather than about this one percent funding you insisted on.
I haven’t listened to NPR in years. I don’t read the news that often anymore. Basically, from what I understood through all my life is that NPR (National Public Radio) is partially funded by the state or the federal government. obviously, it’s more complex than that, but it’s certainly a common enough belief but to argue it one percent is not founded. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nt-funded/
Basically, I’m pushing back at your insistence on having someone else proof their statement when you won’t even back up yours or redact it when you’re wrong.
You are presenting a double standard. Now perhaps you disagree, but this is what’s been presented and perception to many people is reality.

So, is it your fault? sort of.

If you want to communicate with your audience effectively, which is apparently your primary desire behind creating these fences and trying to limit the conversation to specific channels, then perhaps you should consider that you fail at communicating yourself.

I’m currently in quite a lot of pain and I can’t do anything other than browse Menno, otherwise I probably wouldn’t care about the continued feuding you have with several members.

[Bootstrap]

Basically, I’m pushing back at your insistence on having someone else proof their statement when you won’t even back up yours or redact it when you’re wrong.

I don't think so. In fact, you mentioned the post where I said I hadn't studied their financing, and I thought the answer was probably somewhere in these financial statements. Notice that I specifically said this:

I haven't studied them yet. My claim may or may not be true ;->

That's pretty much the way I would expect anyone who cares about doing truth to respond when challenged on something like this, unless they had really done their homework on the question.

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

It really does take me significant time and effort to study financials. I think you and Ken pointed to useful resources for understanding them. But the whole point of the financing discussion was the claim that NPR was somehow a state-sponsored propaganda channel just like Russia Today, which even your article says is silly.

I’m currently in quite a lot of pain and I can’t do anything other than browse Menno, otherwise I probably wouldn’t care about the continued feuding you have with several members.

I'm sorry. FWIW, I'm having some physical issues myself. Perhaps we should try again tomorrow when we are in better shape?

And perhaps we can focus on the topic we are discussing, instead of tearing me down personally?

[Soloist]

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.

And perhaps we can focus on the topic we are discussing, instead of tearing me down personally?

I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking a habit of yours. When you stop challenging people for factual sources, which you end up disagreeing with their sources anyway most of the time, and you start presenting data to support your claim that someone else’s claim is wrong… but you don’t even read it… you really need to read the evidence you claim you have before you post it.
When my child says they didn’t open the window and later come to find out that they told someone else to open the window…
all I’m saying is if you’re going to continue to take issue with every detail that anyone ever says do the same for yourself. Be consistent.
As for taking it up again tomorrow, i’ve said my point you can either choose to listen or you can ignore it again. I don’t see a point in saying it again.. so until the next time, I’m in extreme pain, farewell.