Re:NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as 'state-a...
by brewdad on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @01:11PM
(#35543113)
Those member stations choose to spend that money on NPR content. They are under no obligation (aside from standing contracts) to continue to give that money to NPR in the future. They could opt to license programming from other sources.
That's like saying a federal employee who chooses to donate some of their income to NPR is giving them government funding.
Re:NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as 'state-a...
by civilized on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @01:16PM
(#35543192)
I agree to some extent, but when the federal government is funding similar organizations with a similar mission, they have a strong incentive to work together. Public radio stations are operated and listened to by the kind of people who like NPR programming.
It's more like a federal employee who works for NPR and believes in NPR's mission donating to NPR. Yes, it's not compulsory, but the money is flowing towards entities with closely related missions that have a strong incentive to cooperate.
But again, I agree with you that the voluntary nature of the cooperation makes it quite different from merely some kind of shell game.
Member stations themselves receive 13% of their revenue from the CPB (8%) and "federal, state, and local governments" (5%). Let's call that piece about 10% as a best guess of the federal-only part.
40% from member stations, which themselves get 10% from the Feds, is 4% additional from the Feds, bringing up NPR's federal revenue from the 1% they said to an all-in total of 5%.
It seems that NPR's statement is a bit misleading, but not that materially so.
(I'm as surprised as many of you may be, readers -- I thought they were much more federally funded as well.)
My accounting skills are less than amateur, so please point out anything I may have missed. I'm not quite sure if 40% of 10% computation is a sound representation of what's going on.