So then should be easy to make up for the lack of taxpayer funding then, right? If it costs so little, the people who care about it should be happy to pay for it. :)
Be sure to up your donation. Should be easy. The cost is “so little.”
They could have avoided this if they would have stayed neutral in their reporting and staffing.
So then should be easy to make up for the lack of taxpayer funding then, right? If it costs so little, the people who care about it should be happy to pay for it. :)
I’m not gonna engage with bad faith bait. That’s idiotic and we both know it.
They could have avoided this if they would have stayed neutral in their reporting and staffing.
Well I guess they could have given up reporting on reality like most corporate media, but that was one of the primary advantages of not being a corporate owned propaganda machine.
I’m not gonna engage with bad faith bait. That’s idiotic and we both know it.
That’s not bad faith at all. You legit said that it costs so little. So then that little cost should be easy to make up. So which is it? Does it cost little or cost a lot?
Well I guess they could have given up reporting on reality like most corporate media, but that was one of the primary advantages of not being a corporate owned propaganda machine.
I’m totally ok with a news org being biased if it’s private. But not if it’s a public taxpayer-funded news org. They’ve admitted to having a liberal-bias.
Having a liberal-bias while reporting liberal-skewed news is not “reality” like you say. If you want tax payer money, then be a fucking neutral reporting agency.
The very fact that so many liberals liked it, and are mad at the funding being removed, is because it was a liberal-skewed news org. lmao
I’m fine with them spending a year being neutral, then campaigning for the federal funding to resume.
So then should be easy to make up for the lack of taxpayer funding then, right? If it costs so little, the people who care about it should be happy to pay for it. :)
Be sure to up your donation. Should be easy. The cost is “so little.”
They could have avoided this if they would have stayed neutral in their reporting and staffing.
NPR should not be funded by the tax payers. That said, very little of their funding comes from the government. This is mostly symbolic.
Which should be easy to make up for. Because if people like them so much, then donations would be easy to make up for it.
Liberals seem to want a lot of stuff that they aren’t willing to pay for lately.
Liberals are not charitable. Conservatives are by nature. So even small cut will impact them heavily because it’s not like liberals will donate.
good point
I’m not gonna engage with bad faith bait. That’s idiotic and we both know it.
Well I guess they could have given up reporting on reality like most corporate media, but that was one of the primary advantages of not being a corporate owned propaganda machine.
That’s not bad faith at all. You legit said that it costs so little. So then that little cost should be easy to make up. So which is it? Does it cost little or cost a lot?
I’m totally ok with a news org being biased if it’s private. But not if it’s a public taxpayer-funded news org. They’ve admitted to having a liberal-bias.
Having a liberal-bias while reporting liberal-skewed news is not “reality” like you say. If you want tax payer money, then be a fucking neutral reporting agency.
The very fact that so many liberals liked it, and are mad at the funding being removed, is because it was a liberal-skewed news org. lmao
I’m fine with them spending a year being neutral, then campaigning for the federal funding to resume.