In 2017, NPR earned 38% of its revenue from individual contributions; 19% from corporate sponsorship and licensing; 10% from foundation donations; 10% from university licensing and donations; 8% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; and 4% from federal, state, and local governments via member stations.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra...
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
this quote comes directly from npr (see concluding statement on this page[0]):
> "On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments."
[0]: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
so yes, that's most.
[0]: "As of September 30, 2021, 13 donors comprise approximately 77% of the gross pledges receivable balance.", from page 31 of their FY2020 consolidated financials
No thank you, never.
So simple to solve, one wonders why it hasn't been solved long ago.
Which in retrospect makes NPR look petty, partisan and disinterested in actual investigative journalism. But the article also says that they receive “minimal” public funding (4% of their operating budget)
https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2022/01/20/1074540...
> No one has challenged the broader focus of Totenberg's original story, which asserts that the justices in general are not getting along well. The controversy over the anecdotal lead, which was intended to be illustrative, has overwhelmed the uncontested premise of the story.
Gorsuch and Sotomayor issued a joint statement that they are warm friends. Doesn’t that challenge the broader focus of the story? How are we supposed to take them seriously unless we want to believe what they’re saying uncritically?