It's pretty funny that two big dramatic things in #USPolitics right now is Thomas taking vacations with friends (how dare he not disclose that?!) and NPR accepting money from the US government (how dare #Twitter disclose that?!).
Well, funny might not be the right word.
It's sad. But this is Fediverse.
@volkris Of course, the friend often didn't go on the vacations, just paid for them, and they were super lavish and he just happened to be a billionaire with business before the court more than once.
NPR has always, always had some govt subsidy. this is a big reveal now? I think NPR is probably just saying "yes we get some, but it's not enough to cover our budget, and it's not making us prejudicial."
The excuses that NPR has been putting out have been particularly silly.
It just always strikes me that, if the government funding is so miniscule then the journalistic organization should stop accepting it just to kill that as a controversy.
But I guess the contributions must not be so minuscule since they keep accepting the controversy to take the money.
@volkris There's always the hope that a more sympathetic govt might up the donation to NPR and PBS which I think they should. I think they we need public broadcasting.
Right but they can't have it both ways.
Either they are government funded to a significant amount or they're not.
If the funding is significant great! They need to own that they are government funded. If the funding is not significant, then they need to cut it off because it doesn't matter because it's not significant.
They just can't have it both ways.
@volkris even if it's ten percent that's not govt funded, that's govt funding ten percent. 90% still comes privately.
That is not relevant really.
The question is, if they are 10% government funded, is that 10% so important to them?
If it is so important to them, then I guess they are subject to being influenced by the government to keep it. If it is not so important to them, then maybe they ought to not take it.
It just comes down to their choice.
B government funded or don't be government-funded. It's up to them to decide how important that is, and if it is important then they are signing that deal.
They just need to be honest about it.
@volkris They're not influenced. It would be evident if they are. It isn't. When I was in the Coast Guard, as a young man, I was "government funded". It didn't affect my vote.
Whether they are or are not is a separate question.
I just focus on the simple fact that they are accepting funding from government, and if the amount is so small has to be irrelevant then why take it at all? Unless it's enough to be significant, in which case why deny it?
They are trying to have it both ways, and we should call them out on that.
If they are accepting a significant amount of government funding then they should own it, they should proudly say that the public is supporting them and they are doing good work with that public funding.
Or if they are not accepting a significant amount of government funding then why accept it at all?
