----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:39 PM Subject: Re: LIBERAL TALKRADIO NETWORK TO LAUNCH MARCH 31
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, unless they deliberately lie it's 2%. > > > > "The only direct government funding NPR receives is > > through competitive > > grants from government agencies for specific > > projects. Such grants are > > awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, > > the National Science > > Foundation, and the National Endowments for the Arts > > and the Humanities, > > and typically represent only 2% of total revenues." > > > > at > > > > > > > http://www.npr.org/about/place/corpsupport/financials.html > > > > > > Dan M. > > Note that it could be 50 cents, and I would still > think it's unconscionable, but I _believe_ that this > is a fudge on their part. Not a lie, per se, but I > think that some fairly substantial fractions of the > pie are "indirect" federal funding - money from local > affiliates that are subsidized, etc. I know that the Houston public radio station gets less than 20% of its funding from public sources. I think that government grants to run programs on science education is not really that much of a problem, even if the same radio station runs commentary that I disagree with. What I don't understand is how you can make this a consistent matter of principal. If you apply this to for profit corporations, then a number of things that you have defended as free speech are really coerced speech. For example, is it OK for Halliburton to contribute to political campaigns and run ads which are intended to influence the public on issues that are important to Halliburton? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
