637
Thomas Matthew Crooks had Donald Trump signs in his yard—neighbor
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
637 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They sure can agree on a few things:
But are they concerned with making money? 😁
If they're privately held, yes.
If they're publicly traded, yes.
If they're publicly funded, also yes, but only because they wouldn't exist otherwise.
Even if they don't say it, it's always a priority :)
There are several large nonprofit media corporations such as NPR.
Yet I feel like every time I listen to them they're basically running an ad for a movie/TV show/book through a fluff interview with someone who worked on it.
But there is no incentive to get more money than they need to operate, because the shareholders and board don't profit from it personally. NPR income is spent over 92% on program funding and 7% on administrative.
It's basically run the same way as Wikipedia. If enough people donated, there would be no ads at all.
They run programming that they suspect will get them money, either through donations or government funding- because for those working to get raises the organization needs to have money. (As well as other reasons of course)
You're accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement? Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?
No? I never said anything about embezzlement.
I also never said that.
Here's an example:
If you work for a public park, you're probably going to support more money for the park for a lot of reasons, but here are just a few:
the park may be able to afford to pay you more.
the park may be able to afford hiring more people making your job easier.
you likely care about the park to some extent and want other people to enjoy it.
you want where you work and spend your time to be liked.
you are less likely to be at risk of losing your job.
None of those things are embezzlement or suggest you're overpaid.
That hypothetical isn't placing profit first, at all.
I never said they did
Then why even apply an anecdote in reply to my fact to start with? I think we're done here.
What? I don't think you understood what I said, please reread it.
It was teasing
I said there is a income motive
There very clearly isn't an income motive. The organization is following their clearly stated goals of providing news and reporting to the american people. Their documents prove that.
Why do they ask member stations to contribute financially then? And ask for funding