NPR Lies, Doesn’t Care When Caught…

[Ingomike]

Yes, but I thought we were talking about NPR. Do you want to start a thread on CPB so you don't threadjack this one?

If NPR gets grants from CPB, which gets tax dollars, it is discussing tax dollar funding for NPR..

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, but I thought we were talking about NPR. Do you want to start a thread on CPB so you don't threadjack this one?

From the article posted above. Lost of smoke and mirrors to hide just how much tax money funds NPR.

According to information available from the NPR website, local radio station money comes from the following sources:

32.1% Individual contributions

21.1% Business contributions

13.6% University funds

10.1% Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds

9.6% Foundation money

5.6% Federal, state, and local government funds

7.6% Other

At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you guessed it -- the federal government. Those university funds, whenever they are provided by a public university, represent taxpayer-provided dollars. We can safely assert that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded, which means that more than 10% (three-quarters of that 13.6%) is taken from the taxpayer's pockets.

So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.

Obviously the support by individuals, businesses, and foundations does not constitute taxpayer funding, right? Not so fast. These donations are tax-deductible; thus, they are subsidized by the government. Granted, not every gift is actually reflected on an individual or business tax return, and not all of those that are itemized wind up offsetting high marginal tax rates. Still, it is reasonable to believe that on average, these gifts result in deductions at the 25% tax bracket. Since these three categories add up to roughly 64% of station funds, we can reasonably argue that 16% of that money (64% x 0.25) is subsidized by the tax code.

In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41% of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.

What about the entity that generated all the buzz for firing Juan Williams? Interestingly, despite their conflicting 2% and 3% claims, the NPR website says, "We receive no direct federal funding for operations." Of course, that sort of statement leaves open the possibility of receiving direct federal funding for other purposes. What are those? They don't volunteer that information easily. What they do point out prominently is that the biggest source of money is from member stations. Local stations pay dues and fees for the programs they rebroadcast. This money, recorded as Station Programming Fees (40%), Membership Dues (1%), and Distribution Services (8%), accounts for nearly half of NPR's funds.

Why is this significant? You do recall that some 41% of local station money came from taxpayers, right? If 50% of funding comes from money that is 40% derived from taxes, then another 20% of NPR's budget comes, indirectly, from taxpayers. Twenty percent! That's a long way from the 2%-3% figures, isn't it?

The next huge chunk of NPR income comes from "Sponsorships." These are the things that, in any other media outlet, would be called advertisements. We could argue that sponsorship money is tax-deductible and therefore partly taxpayer-funded, but, lest we look like double-standard-wielding lefties, we would have to make the same argument for the ads that car companies run on ABC and CBS. Let's face it: virtually every large corporation in America enjoys some form of government largesse. That's what happens when government tentacles reach into all portions of our lives.

On the other hand, there is much more clarity when we look to the 10% "Grants and Contributions" category that represents direct taxpayer gifting (most prominently by way of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and indirect taxpayer support by way of tax deductions. Is it reasonable to say that half of that 10% comes in one way or another from taxes? I think so, but I'll settle for saying that this category adds just 3% to the total. This brings our total of taxpayer support for the entire NPR budget to around 23%.

Given that only 89% of the NPR income pie comes from external sources (the rest coming from investment returns), it is not unreasonable to assert that more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's a long way from two to three percent.


Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html#ixzz7J06DtFi8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter| AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Hawkeye]

From the article posted above. Lost of smoke and mirrors to hide just how much tax money funds NPR.

According to information available from the NPR website, local radio station money comes from the following sources:

32.1% Individual contributions

21.1% Business contributions

13.6% University funds

10.1% Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds

9.6% Foundation money

5.6% Federal, state, and local government funds

7.6% Other

At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you guessed it -- the federal government. Those university funds, whenever they are provided by a public university, represent taxpayer-provided dollars. We can safely assert that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded, which means that more than 10% (three-quarters of that 13.6%) is taken from the taxpayer's pockets.

So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.

Obviously the support by individuals, businesses, and foundations does not constitute taxpayer funding, right? Not so fast. These donations are tax-deductible; thus, they are subsidized by the government. Granted, not every gift is actually reflected on an individual or business tax return, and not all of those that are itemized wind up offsetting high marginal tax rates. Still, it is reasonable to believe that on average, these gifts result in deductions at the 25% tax bracket. Since these three categories add up to roughly 64% of station funds, we can reasonably argue that 16% of that money (64% x 0.25) is subsidized by the tax code.

In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41% of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.

What about the entity that generated all the buzz for firing Juan Williams? Interestingly, despite their conflicting 2% and 3% claims, the NPR website says, "We receive no direct federal funding for operations." Of course, that sort of statement leaves open the possibility of receiving direct federal funding for other purposes. What are those? They don't volunteer that information easily. What they do point out prominently is that the biggest source of money is from member stations. Local stations pay dues and fees for the programs they rebroadcast. This money, recorded as Station Programming Fees (40%), Membership Dues (1%), and Distribution Services (8%), accounts for nearly half of NPR's funds.

Why is this significant? You do recall that some 41% of local station money came from taxpayers, right? If 50% of funding comes from money that is 40% derived from taxes, then another 20% of NPR's budget comes, indirectly, from taxpayers. Twenty percent! That's a long way from the 2%-3% figures, isn't it?

The next huge chunk of NPR income comes from "Sponsorships." These are the things that, in any other media outlet, would be called advertisements. We could argue that sponsorship money is tax-deductible and therefore partly taxpayer-funded, but, lest we look like double-standard-wielding lefties, we would have to make the same argument for the ads that car companies run on ABC and CBS. Let's face it: virtually every large corporation in America enjoys some form of government largesse. That's what happens when government tentacles reach into all portions of our lives.

On the other hand, there is much more clarity when we look to the 10% "Grants and Contributions" category that represents direct taxpayer gifting (most prominently by way of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and indirect taxpayer support by way of tax deductions. Is it reasonable to say that half of that 10% comes in one way or another from taxes? I think so, but I'll settle for saying that this category adds just 3% to the total. This brings our total of taxpayer support for the entire NPR budget to around 23%.

Given that only 89% of the NPR income pie comes from external sources (the rest coming from investment returns), it is not unreasonable to assert that more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's a long way from two to three percent.


Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html#ixzz7J06DtFi8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter| AmericanThinker on Facebook

You are really hung up on this, aren't you.

 

[Ingomike]

You are really hung up on this, aren't you.

You are really hung up on this, aren’t you?

 

[Ingomike]

You are really hung up on this, aren't you.

Because you are perpetuating the lie…

 

[Cameramonkey]

Because you are perpetuating the lie…

Its not a lie. Its just an alternate reality. LOL

 

[BehindBlueI's]

24 hour news cycle killed that notion. Being first is more valuable than being right. That's how you get the Sum Ting Wong incidents, but I see it all the time at the local level. I used to see news stories about a case I was working and the 'facts' were so wrong I didn't recgonize it as my case until I saw the victim's name.

Without going into detail, there is a story on Fox59's web site right now that has the basic premise correct in that the event occurred and the person was injured as a result. The rest of it is so far from the truth as to be unrecognizable. It's likely a combination of playing 'telephone' as well as taking people at their word about their own actions. Nobody tells the news "I'm shady AF" or "I was incredibly reckless" or otherwise admits fault publicly.

Then you stand there with a claim and no proof. ZFG. If you can’t prove your claim, I say you are a liar. The decision is yours.

This is a claim with no proof. Many people here no who I really am and why I would know this, but I will not publicly state as much. Similar to when I hinted around about the P320 drop safety issues before they were public knowledge but did not come out and spill the beans. "May not be as drop safe as other options" is how I phrased it, IIRC, so if you'd like confirmation search this forum for my posts then see when the first posts hit YouTube, etc. I beat TTAG by a year... I knew but couldn't say and still won't say how I knew. Sometimes protecting your source from retribution, or not violating an NDA, or whatever is more important than if randoms online who can't otherwise evaluate your credibility decide to say you are a liar.

 

[cosermann]

To my way of thinking NPR has outlived it's usefulness and all public funding, of any kind, should be cut.

It, and the National Educational Radio Network before it, grew out of a time when we had no where near the content we do today. Today, we're virtually drowning in content of every kind and description.

Thus, .gov support of NPR is no longer needed.

 

[Greffy]

NPR is a communist rag with no redemptive value. Definitely no reason for it to be funded by taxpayers.

Wow, what a narrow minded statement. I've listened to NPR for many years, and in the last decade or so they have become IMO rather conservative, at least compared to previous decades. Not to mention that they now have many Corporate "underwriters" a fact that we are frequently reminded of on the air. I guess your mileage varies A LOT.

 

[KLB]

Wow, what a narrow minded statement. I've listened to NPR for many years, and in the last decade or so they have become IMO rather conservative, at least compared to previous decades. Not to mention that they now have many Corporate "underwriters" a fact that we are frequently reminded of on the air. I guess your mileage varies A LOT.

Could you give some examples of this conservative viewpoint? I must say my experience is very different.

 

[rhamersley]

Could you give some examples of this conservative viewpoint? I must say my experience is very different.

They want to "conserve" all the prog/lib/socialist wish list gains they've gotten over the last several administrations...

 

[Greffy]

To my way of thinking NPR has outlived it's usefulness and all public funding, of any kind, should be cut.

It, and the National Educational Radio Network before it, grew out of a time when we had no where near the content we do today. Today, we're virtually drowning in content of every kind and description.

Thus, .gov support of NPR is no longer needed.

So for those not blessed with spare cash to subscribe to XM Satellite service or other 'alternatives' and just want to use their car radios to keep informed without being virtually assaulted (my opinion) by obnoxious radio commercials, you would eliminate that choice? The AM band is pretty much a wasteland anymore IMO. I'd rather my taxes (and debt for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to be saddled with) not be used for the MIC that, as the Forefathers (and Pres. Eisenhower) warned, go around the globe 'seeking Monsters to destroy'. Se'd be better off getting 'informed' by venal, and so very trustworthy, magnanimous Corporate behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Yeah, that's got to be better, right?
Rant Off

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Could you give some examples of this conservative viewpoint? I must say my experience is very different.

They want to "conserve" all the prog/lib/socialist wish list gains they've gotten over the last several administrations...

 

[Greffy]

Could you give some examples of this conservative viewpoint? I must say my experience is very different.

Actually no, because I don't take notes and write reports or what because I don't have an 'agenda' that needs to be defended or justified. Yup, California doesn't have a lot of historical baggage, well except for the enslavement of the Native Americans by
the Church and others. I was born here, and watched things grow (culturally) organically, as it were. So yes, significant left viewpoint as compared to those indoctrinated in the strict other side. Sure glad I lucked out and didn't get grafted for Vietnam. I remember when the 'Left' radio station personalities here used to seem to be foaming at the mouth type lefties. Not my thing,
though interesting to have heard it all.

So yeah if you were formed from the hard right point of view, probably most things seem left somehow. BTW, what has the Right ever done to benefit the working man of its own origination, eh? Not saying I agree with a lot of the crazy 'identity politics' going
on now, but I see thing with a bit of balance I think Still things aren't good now, it is just a matter of how you decide to lay the blame. TPTB make sure we keep at each other and too busy to see who really is making out like pirates. TIA, Greffy

 

[Ingomike]

So for those not blessed with spare cash to subscribe to XM Satellite service or other 'alternatives' and just want to use their car radios to keep informed without being virtually assaulted (my opinion) by obnoxious radio commercials, you would eliminate that choice? The AM band is pretty much a wasteland anymore IMO. I'd rather my taxes (and debt for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to be saddled with) not be used for the MIC that, as the Forefathers (and Pres. Eisenhower) warned, go around the globe 'seeking Monsters to destroy'. Se'd be better off getting 'informed' by venal, and so very trustworthy, magnanimous Corporate behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Yeah, that's got to be better, right?
Rant Off

Oh what a gem of a post. Complaining about not having money for XM while wanting and paying for a government teat to play news for you…

 

[Greffy]

Oh what a gem of a post. Complaining about not having money for XM while wanting and paying for a government teat to play news for you…

I wasn't complaining, I could get those services. Do you believe there is any such thing as news without bias or viewpoint?
All stations are selling eyeballs and ears to the sponsors or advertisers. NPR does it much less than most. You don't mind paying for subscription programs, I don't mind tax largess being used to inform the Public. Better NPR subsidies than bailing out bets gone bad by private equity financial firms etc., etc....

 

[Ingomike]

I wasn't complaining, I could get those services. Do you believe there is any such thing as news without bias or viewpoint?
All stations are selling eyeballs and ears to the sponsors or advertisers. NPR does it much less than most. You don't mind paying for subscription programs, I don't mind tax largess being used to inform the Public. Better NPR subsidies than bailing out bets gone bad by private equity financial firms etc., etc....

Keep on rationalizing…

 

[KLB]

Actually no, because I don't take notes and write reports or what because I don't have an 'agenda' that needs to be defended or justified. Yup, California doesn't have a lot of historical baggage, well except for the enslavement of the Native Americans by
the Church and others. I was born here, and watched things grow (culturally) organically, as it were. So yes, significant left viewpoint as compared to those indoctrinated in the strict other side. Sure glad I lucked out and didn't get grafted for Vietnam. I remember when the 'Left' radio station personalities here used to seem to be foaming at the mouth type lefties. Not my thing,
though interesting to have heard it all.

So yeah if you were formed from the hard right point of view, probably most things seem left somehow. BTW, what has the Right ever done to benefit the working man of its own origination, eh? Not saying I agree with a lot of the crazy 'identity politics' going
on now, but I see thing with a bit of balance I think Still things aren't good now, it is just a matter of how you decide to lay the blame. TPTB make sure we keep at each other and too busy to see who really is making out like pirates. TIA, Greffy

How did we go from NPR is conservative to what has the Right done for the working man?

If you heard all of this conservative talk coming from them, it shouldn't be hard to find examples. I guess if you think they are conservative that you must be coming from the really hard left. I'm not even what people around here would consider on the right. I track much more libertarian. You can find example after example of NPR having hard left viewpoints.

Where the "working man" is concerned, the Rs don't pander directly to them like the Ds, but then again the Ds don't seem to care a lick for them anymore. The unions are just another voting block that they take for granted as theirs.

TPTB make sure we keep at each other and too busy to see who really is making out like pirates. TIA, Greffy

Now this we agree on.

 

[KLB]

I wasn't complaining, I could get those services. Do you believe there is any such thing as news without bias or viewpoint?
All stations are selling eyeballs and ears to the sponsors or advertisers. NPR does it much less than most. You don't mind paying for subscription programs, I don't mind tax largess being used to inform the Public. Better NPR subsidies than bailing out bets gone bad by private equity financial firms etc., etc....

The difference here is it isn't just you paying for NPR, we all do. Others should not be forced to subsidize your entertainment.

Better NPR subsidies than bailing out bets gone bad by private equity financial firms etc., etc....

This is a false dichotomy. Neither should be happening. Why do people think the .gov should always be spending all of this money? They need to cut, cut, cut, not spend, spend, spend.

 

[actaeon277]

Look at what happened to Canada's media when the government subsidized it.