Two interesting reads this morning

[PotimusWillie]

One about NPR, the other about Pres Biden comments regarding women’s salaries.

The issue with NPR is that it is funded by tax dollars yet doesn’t represent the tax payer. It represents political bias. It is a mouthpiece.

Please explain why we need NPR at all? We have more news outlets than we can use. So why should we fund them?

Women’s pay, specifically the Caitlin Clark comment by President Biden.

Of course his comments were just ideological meaningless words that were spoken to somehow show he is for equality……….. says women should be paid as men are………

What his staff forgot to tell him is that women get paid at a higher percentage of revenue than men do already. So he wants men to get paid more using the women’s sport revenue model?

If it costs you $1.00 to make a widget and you sell it for $1.00, there is no revenue to pay your salesman.

The NBA makes 50 times the revenue of the WNBA. Is a women’s player suppose to make the same amount of salary?

Supply and demand dictate compensation, nor woke grandstanding by the President trolling for gen x votes.

 

[kckd]

One about NPR, the other about Pres Biden comments regarding women’s salaries.

The issue with NPR is that it is funded by tax dollars yet doesn’t represent the tax payer. It represents political bias. It is a mouthpiece.

Please explain why we need NPR at all? We have more news outlets than we can use. So why should we fund them?

Women’s pay, specifically the Caitlin Clark comment by President Biden.

Of course his comments were just ideological meaningless words that were spoken to somehow show he is for equality……….. says women should be paid as men are………

What his staff forgot to tell him is that women get paid at a higher percentage of revenue than men do already. So he wants men to get paid more using the women’s sport revenue model?

If it costs you $1.00 to make a widget and you sell it for $1.00, there is no revenue to pay your salesman.

The NBA makes 50 times the revenue of the WNBA. Is a women’s player suppose to make the same amount of salary?

Supply and demand dictate compensation, nor woke grandstanding by the President trolling for gen x votes.

I agree on the women's WNBA salaries and Clark.

Not sure about NPR. They cover a lot more than just politics. Some of that stuff is a good listen that I wouldn't think anyone would have a gripe about. And more money comes into NPR through private corporations than the government. Taking govt. funding away would hurt it for sure, but it wouldn't kill it.

 

[atlanta cock#]

One about NPR, the other about Pres Biden comments regarding women’s salaries.

The issue with NPR is that it is funded by tax dollars yet doesn’t represent the tax payer. It represents political bias. It is a mouthpiece.

Please explain why we need NPR at all? We have more news outlets than we can use. So why should we fund them?

Women’s pay, specifically the Caitlin Clark comment by President Biden.

Of course his comments were just ideological meaningless words that were spoken to somehow show he is for equality……….. says women should be paid as men are………

What his staff forgot to tell him is that women get paid at a higher percentage of revenue than men do already. So he wants men to get paid more using the women’s sport revenue model?

If it costs you $1.00 to make a widget and you sell it for $1.00, there is no revenue to pay your salesman.

The NBA makes 50 times the revenue of the WNBA. Is a women’s player suppose to make the same amount of salary?

Supply and demand dictate compensation, nor woke grandstanding by the President trolling for gen x votes.

What's a woman? Shouldn't Joe first answer that Q?

 

[oldmandawg]

I agree on the women's WNBA salaries and Clark.

Not sure about NPR. They cover a lot more than just politics. Some of that stuff is a good listen that I wouldn't think anyone would have a gripe about. And more money comes into NPR through private corporations than the government. Taking govt. funding away would hurt it for sure, but it wouldn't kill it.

View embedded media

Sounds like you are making an argument for defunding npr. I agree.

 

[kckd]

Sounds like you are making an argument for defunding npr. I agree.

I don't really care. It wouldn't help much as they aren't getting very much of the whole pie. A penny if the federal intake is compared to an average person's salary. Not sure that it would actually be legal for the government to defund them. They can stop giving them money, but they can't really keep other people from doing it.

 

[PotimusWillie]

I don't really care. It wouldn't help much as they aren't getting very much of the whole pie. A penny if the federal intake is compared to an average person's salary. Not sure that it would actually be legal for the government to defund them. They can stop giving them money, but they can't really keep other people from doing it.

Fund it voluntarily. But I doubt it could survive.

 

[PotimusWillie]

I agree on the women's WNBA salaries and Clark.

Not sure about NPR. They cover a lot more than just politics. Some of that stuff is a good listen that I wouldn't think anyone would have a gripe about. And more money comes into NPR through private corporations than the government. Taking govt. funding away would hurt it for sure, but it wouldn't kill it.

View embedded media

I hear ya, but I can watch anything I want at any time without the need for NPR.

I think it would kill it. They would have to go non stop begging for funds.

That’s a lot of old groups from the 50’s CD’s to sell.

Here’s the truth. Nearly half a billion dollars is paid out to local public television and radio. With that, nearly 40% of NPR funding comes from Fed redistribution. The system hides the funding from the taxpayer.

NPR may receive little direct federal funding, but a good deal of its budget comprises federal funds that flow to it indirectly by federal law. Here’s how it works: Under the terms of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act, funds are allocated annually to a non-governmental agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, overseen by a board of presidential appointees. That corporation, in turn, can choose to support original programming produced by public television or public radio — but, by law, must direct much of its $445 million funding (scheduled to top $500 million next fiscal year) to local public television and public radio stations across the country, via so-called “community service grants.”

Here’s where things get tricky. Local stations, if they want to broadcast “All Things Considered,” “Fresh Air” and other programming produced by NPR or competitors such as American Public Radio, must pay for it. Indeed, in its consolidated financial statement for 2021, 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.

What’s more, local stations are actually required by law to do so. The 1967 act specifies that, of funds they received from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, “23 percent of such amounts shall be available for distribution among the licensees and permittees of public radio stations solely to be used for acquiring or producing programming that is to be distributed nationally and is designed to serve the needs of a national audience.”

How does it serve your needs? A Simon and Garfunkel reunion concert?

 

[atlanta cock#]

I don't really care. It wouldn't help much as they aren't getting very much of the whole pie. A penny if the federal intake is compared to an average person's salary. Not sure that it would actually be legal for the government to defund them. They can stop giving them money, but they can't really keep other people from doing it.

Why should taxes fund something that is not only decidedly one-sided but is actually hostile to opposing views? What public purpose is being served to justify tax funding? I would argue there are many private institutions (houses of worship for example) that do far more for the public than NPR, which seems to fancy itself the arbiter of propriety while it serves a very shallow pool of self described elite intellectuals who in reality are ignorant, narrow-minded, racist jerks who despise half the country.

 

[nice marmot]

Fund it voluntarily. But I doubt it could survive.

< 1% of NPR's budget is direct federal funding.

~10% is indirect federal/state/local via fees paid by local/regional stations that pay fees to run NPR programming.

so... yeah...

 

[nice marmot]

I think it would kill it. They would have to go non stop begging for funds.

nope.

 

[PotimusWillie]

< 1% of NPR's budget is direct federal funding.

~10% is indirect federal/state/local via fees paid by local/regional stations that pay fees to run NPR programming.

so... yeah...

That is not true. “Direct” federal funding……..

You don’t understand the Public Broadcasting Act.

 

[kckd]

That is not true. “Direct” federal funding……..

You don’t understand the Public Broadcasting Act.

For certain, but it's not nearly as debilitating as you think it is either. People would step up to save it and they might have to downsize a little, but it would continue. If it would make you feel better to know the govt. saved a penny by not spending money on it though, maybe it would be worth it to you. If you think it would end it, you'd be wrong.

 

[PotimusWillie]

For certain, but it's not nearly as debilitating as you think it is either. People would step up to save it and they might have to downsize a little, but it would continue. If it would make you feel better to know the govt. saved a penny by not spending money on it though, maybe it would be worth it to you. If you think it would end it, you'd be wrong.

My point wasn’t about what would end it. I doubt it could survive as the economy continues to tank for the average citizen, but that isn’t it.

Millions go to NPR from our tax dollars. The only money our government has to spend is our tax money.

It is a crime that even a penny of our tax dollars are spent on it or are legally entitled to it through political gerrymandering. Slight of hand.

We act as if millions spent are nothing. We deserve where we are going. Why would a citizen trust a government funded news organization?

 

[SLC_Dawg]

One about NPR, the other about Pres Biden comments regarding women’s salaries.

The issue with NPR is that it is funded by tax dollars yet doesn’t represent the tax payer. It represents political bias. It is a mouthpiece.

Please explain why we need NPR at all? We have more news outlets than we can use. So why should we fund them?

Women’s pay, specifically the Caitlin Clark comment by President Biden.

Of course his comments were just ideological meaningless words that were spoken to somehow show he is for equality……….. says women should be paid as men are………

What his staff forgot to tell him is that women get paid at a higher percentage of revenue than men do already. So he wants men to get paid more using the women’s sport revenue model?

If it costs you $1.00 to make a widget and you sell it for $1.00, there is no revenue to pay your salesman.

The NBA makes 50 times the revenue of the WNBA. Is a women’s player suppose to make the same amount of salary?

Supply and demand dictate compensation, nor woke grandstanding by the President trolling for gen x votes.

I read the NPR article, and he’s exactly right. And their new president is even more left wing than the old one. Times article full of comments that they cannot understand diversity hires when they speak. It’s funny when the left show their true colors. Theyre more racist than conservatives with their condescension. Maybe they should get out in the real world. BTW, the guy resigned from NPR.

PBS is even a more disfunctional group. 40 year old reruns of British comedy show week after week. 20 year old reruns of British detective shows. I think only Nove and Nature are shoes worth watching, if you can get past the constant climate change message. Fire the lot of them.

 

[kckd]

I read the NPR article, and he’s exactly right. And their new president is even more left wing than the old one. Times article full of comments that they cannot understand diversity hires when they speak. It’s funny when the left show their true colors. Theyre more racist than conservatives with their condescension. Maybe they should get out in the real world. BTW, the guy resigned from NPR.

PBS is even a more disfunctional group. 40 year old reruns of British comedy show week after week. 20 year old reruns of British detective shows. I think only Nove and Nature are shoes worth watching, if you can get past the constant climate change message. Fire the lot of them.

These are the shows currently still airing on PBS. Most of them have nothing to do with politics. There are tons of TV channels I don't watch. What are our choices now, 499? Somehow, they are still alive and kicking. I've heard many NPR shows about actors, musical artists, historical figures that have nothing to do with today's politics that were informative and well done. Just don't get the hate here as if they are pushing some wildly uncontrollable liberal narrative. Is this the new "Happy Holidays" thingy to get upset about?

• Washington Week (1967)
• American Black Journal[1] (1968)[2]
• Masterpiece (1971)
• Great Performances (1972)
• Nova (1974)
• PBS NewsHour (1975)
• Austin City Limits (1976)
• The Woodwright's Shop (1979)
• This Old House (1979)
• MotorWeek (1981)
• Nature (1982)
• Frontline (1983)
• American Masters (1986)
• American Experience (1988)
• P.O.V. (1988)
• Ciao Italia (1989)
• Antiques Roadshow (1997)
• Independent Lens (1999)
• Secrets of the Dead (2000)
• Ask This Old House (2002)
• BBC World News America (2019)
• Finding Your Roots (2012)
• Reel South (2016)
• Destination Craft with Jim West (2017)
• Amanpour & Company (2018)
• Beyond 100 Days (2018)[3]
• We'll Meet Again (2018)
• Prehistoric Road Trip (2020)
• Tell Me More with Kelly Corrigan (2020)
• The Trouble with Maggie Cole (2020)
• When Disaster Strikes (2021)

 

[TivoliDawg]

I agree on the women's WNBA salaries and Clark.

Not sure about NPR. They cover a lot more than just politics. Some of that stuff is a good listen that I wouldn't think anyone would have a gripe about. And more money comes into NPR through private corporations than the government. Taking govt. funding away would hurt it for sure, but it wouldn't kill it.

View embedded media

I have been listening to NPR for decades. I am not sure how taking money from the state is better than taking money from advertisers.

The theory is that, if advertisements were allowed, NPR with shy away from covering new stories that reflect badly on that advertiser.

What happens in actuality is really the same thing… NPR shies away from covering stories that make the government look bad. They are Pro State. They are Democrat.

 

[TivoliDawg]

One about NPR, the other about Pres Biden comments regarding women’s salaries.

The issue with NPR is that it is funded by tax dollars yet doesn’t represent the tax payer. It represents political bias. It is a mouthpiece.

Please explain why we need NPR at all? We have more news outlets than we can use. So why should we fund them?

Women’s pay, specifically the Caitlin Clark comment by President Biden.

Of course his comments were just ideological meaningless words that were spoken to somehow show he is for equality……….. says women should be paid as men are………

What his staff forgot to tell him is that women get paid at a higher percentage of revenue than men do already. So he wants men to get paid more using the women’s sport revenue model?

If it costs you $1.00 to make a widget and you sell it for $1.00, there is no revenue to pay your salesman.

The NBA makes 50 times the revenue of the WNBA. Is a women’s player suppose to make the same amount of salary?

Supply and demand dictate compensation, nor woke grandstanding by the President trolling for gen x votes.

The WNBA is not a business enterprise, it’s a charity. It has never made a single dollar in its entire history, and all of the women are paid off the backs of the NBA players.

In terms of a business, WNBA players are significantly overpaid.

If the WNBA were a real business, it would already have gone bankrupt years ago.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I have been listening to NPR for decades. I am not sure how taking money from the state is better than taking money from advertisers.

The theory is that, if advertisements were allowed, NPR with shy away from covering new stories that reflect badly on that advertiser.

What happens in actuality is really the same thing… NPR shies away from covering stories that make the government look bad. They are Pro State. They are Democrat.

It's even more sinister than that. If a private advertiser tries to place strings on their contracts, it's much easier to simply refuse to sign and move on to another advertiser. When you depend on the fed gov and they start trying to put strings on the support, the next thing you know, you're as much of a mouthpiece of the state as Pravda was for the Soviets.