The new CEO for National Public Radio (NPR) has become instant news over social media postings that she deleted before the recent announcement of her selection. Katherine Maher is the former CEO of Wikipedia and sought to remove controversial postings on subjects ranging from looters to Trump.
Shannon Thaler at the New York Post reassembled Maher’s deleted postings including a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of race-based commentary. That included a statement that appeared to excuse looting:
She is also quoted for saying that “white silence is complicity.” She has described her own “hysteric white woman voice.” She further stated: “I was taught to do it. I’ve done it. It’s a disturbing recognition. While I don’t recall ever using it to deliberately expose another person to immediate physical harm on my own cognizance, it’s not impossible. That is whiteness.”
She further stated “I grew up feeling superior (hah, how white of me) because I was from New England and my part of the country didn’t have slaves, or so I’d been taught.”
The concern is that Maher will further the advocacy journalism at NPR in framing the news to advance social and political agendas. NPR employees have already objected to efforts to maintain a neutral tone in reporting and declared “civility is a weapon wielded by the powerful.” The most interesting question is how NPR will implement its controversial policy on allowing journalists to join in protests.
NPR declared that it would allow employees to participate in political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.”
The rule itself shows how impressionistic and unprofessional media has become in the woke era. NPR does not try to define what causes constitute advocacy for the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” How about climate change and environmental protection? Would it be prohibited to protest for a forest but okay if it is framed as “environmental justice”?
NPR seems to intentionally keep such questions vague while only citing such good causes as Black Lives Matter and gay rights:
“Is it OK to march in a demonstration and say, ‘Black lives matter’? What about a Pride parade? In theory, the answer today is, “Yes.” But in practice, NPR journalists will have to discuss specific decisions with their bosses, who in turn will have to ask a lot of questions.”
So the editors will have the power to choose between acceptable and unacceptable causes.
Maher will now play a role in determining what causes advance “human dignity” that justifies reporters crossing the line to join the protests. Given her own past advocacy, NPR may have found the perfect adjudicator for advocacy journalists.
NPR is in a long-running contest with Twitter and Facebook to be declared as THE dumbest place that a person expect to find reliable information.
Matt Taibbi’s assessment of NPR almost 3 years ago was glorious
NPR has not run a piece critical of Democrats since Christ was a boy. Moreover, much like the New York Times editorial page (but somehow worse), the public news leader’s monomaniacal focus on “race and sexuality issues” has become an industry in-joke. For at least a year especially, listening to NPR has been like being pinned in wrestling beyond the three-count. Everything is about race or gender, and you can’t make it stop.
https://www.racket.news/p/nprs-brilliant-self-own
Remember October 7th? Yah, me too. Remember the footage of ‘journalists’ participating in the massacre?
National Palestinian radio. She really hates herself
To NPR and all Leftist scum: You may call me whatever names you want and try to make me feel ashamed of my race..But, news flash! My grandchildren are white! So shut the eff up and stop trying to make those precious innocents feel ashamed, unworthy, and inferior, you warthogs from Hell!!
(Bloggers…Forgive my language, especially on the Lord’s day, but I’ve had enough)
@Cindy Bragg – you’re good! honestly, I’m coming to the point where I’ll no longer explain nicely. I’ll just tell the idiots on the other side to Eff off, that their drivel isn’t worth discussing and to shut up.
There is no point to giving them any ground whatsoever.
Not only are they making your grandchildren feel ashamed, they are also scaring the hell out of them that the planet is roasting and the seas are rising.
I can’t believe NPR still exists. What person in their right mind gets their information from NPR?
Can someone please explain why the taxpayer has to subsidize NPR? They (and Katherine Maher) are free to shoot their mouths off, but not on my dime.
It’s because of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
NPR is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the Constitution was extirpated by Lincoln.
It’s protected free speech. The only question is, does the taxpayer want to subsidize the opinions of a lunatic?
The Constitution decides what is “wanted.”
NPR is unconstitutional.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
NPR – Another effort that started out as a good idea but got hijacked by special interest and shadow government.
No real reason to say any more than that.
͟𝑵͟𝑬͟𝑿͟𝑻͟ ͟!͟
None of this starts out as an actual good idea – beleiving that is delusional.
I do not mean to insult you – but government has an incredibly difficult job doing the things that it is required to do competently.
It is never efficient and we do not want it to be – Effficient govenrment and fascism are synonyms.
For a million reasons we do not want government doing things because we think they are good ideas. That is never how it actually works out.
Further your good idea is ALWAYS someone else’s bad idea – do it through govenrment and we all pay for it.
That is theft.
If Ms. Maher finds it hard to be mad over the disrespect of private property in America then I’m sure she’ll join me in extending that belief to the 2.7 million dollar piece of New York private property she shares with her husband.
OT: The impeachment articles against Mayorkas look pretty good. They detail first how he has violated immigration law and second how he has lied to and otherwise obstructed Congress.
Article 4. Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Anonymous at 3:39: Read what you just wrote. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”
It actually says that the U.S. “shall protect each of them (the states) against Invasion.” It doesn’t say that the U.S. guarantees to states the right to protect themselves from invasion.
Notwithstanding, I would argue that the excuse of “supremacy”/preemption does not apply if Congress itself (not Texas) were to “impeach” those responsible for non-enforcement, or more appropriately, non-protection (as it is doing with Mayorkas).
And, of course, states have the right to sue the United States/federal government for not enforcing its own provisions (perhaps this is where Gov. Abbott’s defiance is headed?) as when @ 25 states sued the federal government over DACA.
I dunno, just throwing this out….?
Brilliant! Simply brilliant!
Of course, this discussion is moot because the federal government fulfilled its constitutional duty and protected all States, past tense, including Texas, from invasion.
RIGHT, EINSTEINIA?
P.S. Do let us know when an impeachment of Mayorkas is reinforced and supported by a Senate conviction. Seriously?
Those of you on the left do not seem to grasp – you have flown into a box canyon. There is no way out – you have lost.
Even if you manage to “win” this in the sense that TX backs down, there will be video of the razor wire being cut and and 10,000 illegal immigrants flooding through.
And that is your BEST case scenario. It is unclear at the moment that if Biden orders CBP agents to act that they will do so.
What are those of you on the left going to do if the Border patrol is ordered to removed the TX NG and CBP officers determine the order is unconstitutional and illegal and refuse to follow it ?
What are you going to do if Biden nationalizes the TX NG and the TX NG says that the nationalization is illegal and unconstitutional and they refuse to obey ?
Or if 25 states send members of their NG ? Is Biden going to nationalize them all ?
Idahoe decided to send State Troopers instead of National Guard – Biden can not nationalize them.
TX is working to replace the TX NG with law enforcement – Biden has no authority over them.
I would note that Contra the left and the WH SCOTUS did not order TX to do anything. All SCOTUS did was to direct the lower court to vacate the TRO that was preventing CBP from cutting the razor wire.
The lower courts order restraining order is gone. But their finding that TX’s actions are constitutionally justified is still in place.
There are purportedly 700,000 truckers converging on TX to support the TX NG who will arrive their monday.
And you have a political issue that voters have said is the most important issue in this election, and one that super majorities of voters beleive Biden has acted lawlessly.
Mayorkas is likely to be impeached this week. It is entirely possible that a snap impeachment of Biden on the border will follow.
It does not matter if the Senate does not vote to remove – though even that is not so certain as you think.
There will be a senate trial, and senators will have to face the voters in november and how they vote on this will matter.
Finally though this is not relevant constitutionally – it is relevant politically and it is relevant regarding impeachment.
Federal law is supreme to state law. Federal lawlessness is NOT. the TX NG is enforcing a TX passed version of the Federal immigration law – they are in effect the same law.
CBP at the direction of Mayoraks and Biden are REFUSING to enforce the actual US immigration law.
Ultimately this is NOT an issue that is going to be decided by SCOTUS. This will play out too quickly.
What matters is that the TX NG and/or TX law enforcement ARE enforcing TX law that mirrors federal law.
CBP is action to NOT enforce Federal law.
A federal court has found that TX has the constitutional power to do what it is doing.
That court issued a TRO stopping CBP from interfering.
Scotus vacated the TRO – that is all. They did NOT order TX to do anything. they did not rule on the merits of TX’s constitutional claims – though several lawyers including Turley have said TX may win.
A number of former FBI agents have written a public later supporting Texas’s contention that this is an invasion.
They noted that the equivalent of multiple divisions of military agent adult males have entered the country illegally. That they have no allegiance to this country, and that the constitute a significant national security risk.
Put more simply they have called “horse pucky” on your claim that the federal government has done its constitutional duty.
I seem to recall left wing nuts telling us that letters from former members of the executive as “good as gold”.
Actually, a better case would be Massachusetts v. EPA (joined by several other states) regarding the federal gov’t’s failure to control emissions gases (since no standing in the earlier DACA case). In Massachusetts case, SCOTUS not only found standing, but held that Massachusetts had a “stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests” I think there was another case (out West) where SCOTUS allowed state standing regarding illegal immigration arrests?
The right of the states to act to repel and invasion if the federal government does not is elsewhere in the constitution.
Though I would note that the portion you cited is a contract between the federal government and the states. The federal government has failed to abide by that contract. When a contract is breached the harmed part can act to stop damage.
Impeachment is a separate enforcement mechanism that the house can use – it does not alter the contract between the federal government and TC and it does not alter the ability of TX to act prior to the federal government oing its job.
10 people might have cases for “asylum.”
10 million people will never have cases for “asylum.”
Their cases constitute “asylum” fraud.
Steve writing: In the past, there was the option to leave a name. What happened to that?
From the piece: “NPR declared that it would allow employees to participate in political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.”
As a gun rights person, I believe that owning an “assault weapon” advances freedom and human dignity because I am not being punished because of what someone else did with an “assault weapon” and freedom because I have the right to choose my weapon of choice for recreation and self defense. Would NPR allow employees to March with me?
You can still leave your name. After you write your comment in the box, tap the envelope icon below the comment box. It will ask you to fill in your email address & name. Only your name will appear to the public. Then tap on the blue “Reply.”
With these delete-the-social-media-history stories it’s always a self-loathing left-wing idiot. Every single time. Why is there no variety?
Nice hyperbole!
It’s easy to find counterexamples, such as:
“House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy became the latest Republican to pull his support from the Central Valley congressional candidate [Republican Ted Howze] in the wake of Politico stories revealing anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant posts that had been deleted from the Turlock (Stanislaus County) veterinarian’s social media accounts.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-Republican-with-bigoted-social-media-15295557.php
“John Gray is the Republican candidate running to chair the Prince William County Board of Supervisors. His attempts to scrub his Twitter feed only tipped off his opponent to track down his old tweets that ended up still being online.”
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/virginia-republican-candidates-attempt-to-delete-offensive-tweets-tips-off-opponent-in-prince-william-county
So Republicans pulling posts they are ashamed of is the same as democrats pulling posts they think might look bad ?
People say stupid things and correct themselves.
NPR is not removing statements they are ashamed of. They are removing posts that reflect who they are but might get them in trouble.
That is radically different.
Separately – you presume we are all going to jump out and express outrage over these posts – based on your shallow characterization.
What is “anti-muslim” ? I have no problems with a post that cites the fact that the vast majority of global terrorism is muslism.
That is just a fact. The overwhelming majority of muslims are wonderful peaceful people. But I do not expect TSA to be searching the adult diapers of 89 year old white new england grandmothers. We look for problems where we might actually find them.
Not where we wont. When there is a rash of suicide bombings by White new england grandmothers – I expect TSA to change where they look.
I am personally very pro immigrant – my children are immigrants, This nations is a nation of immigrants.
But ones views on immigration are personal values not inherently repugnant. Being an immigrant is a choice. It is NOT the same as being black or female. I will be happy to debate someone who is anti-immigrant, but holding that view is not inherently offensive.
Finally – you tell us nothing about John Gray – were the posts he pulled racist ? Or were they negative posts about the coaching of the local high school football team.
If you want to make the case that people should be outraged by the speach of republicans – I need to judge for myself whether what you claim to be offensive actually is. Because frankly the judgement of those on the left has been piss poor.
Learn to follow a conversation John.
oldmanfromkansas said “With these delete-the-social-media-history stories it’s always a self-loathing left-wing idiot. Every single time.” and I pointed out counterexamples.
That’s it.
IDGAF about the rest of your rambling.
National Public Radio (NPR) is Communist Public Radio (CPR).
Congress has no power to tax for, create, or regulate any form or rendition of a national radio broadcast station.
NPR is yet another representation of pure unconstitutional communism in America forced on Americans by communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America.
All NPR managers, employees, equipment, and facilities are invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional.
In Lincolnesque fashion, communists must be denied their freedom of speech and press as direct and mortal enemies of the United States of America.
End NPR public funding and let them engage in whatever nonsense the wish.
If left wing nuts wish to contribute to propoganda – that is their business.
As to her statements – property rights are among the most fundimental to society.
If Government does not protect them – society collapses.
At the bare minimum standard of living completely tanks.
John Say,
Well said.
However, NPR is only supported by 3% from the government.
That is why they have their ever so annoying fundraising drives twice a year.
Also noted, since they went all panel-O-pundits in 2016, their corporate support has fallen . . . just like the rest of the MSM aka ARM media and they have had to lay off workers.
To which I say, good.
Learn to code.
Please do post that spreadsheet of truth.
Please do tell us where every last penny of funding comes from.
Members stations must be “NON-PROFIT.
Oh, my, how do you engender revenue through non-profit status, could it involve the taxpayers?
That is what they say during their bi-annual fundraising, that they only get 3% of their budget from the Federal government.
The rest comes from corporate donors which has fallen off significantly according to press reports, to include their own.
Then there are individual donors which also has fallen off significantly according to press reports, to include their own.
Those are just the facts, according to their own reporting.
I do not have a linky, as that is what I heard on NPR radio.
That’s anecdotal; you are obfuscating.
Please give us the scientific; please give us the actual sources of funds, including the hypothesized “corporate donor” sources.
50%,. 3% – the right number is 0%. The same for PP, National Counsel of the arts and humanities.
and on and on.
I do not want government engaged in funding the expression of views that I support.
The role of government is very limited. Everything else that government does reduces standard of living.
When each person choose to pay for – from the value that they produce what they wish to consume – we have the best match to our wants and needs. That raises standard of living.
When government acts some of us get what we want or need. Others end up paying for what we neither want nor need.
So we are all poorer.
Econmics is both simple and complex at the same time. at any given slice of time it is nearly zero sum. We can only consume what we produce. If some of us consume more than we produce others must consume less. This is also why inflation is always monetary – because in any moment in time increasing the price of one thing means we must pay less or buy less of something else.
That said ecomomics is not net zero – absent outside interferance with each iteration we improve productivity and therefor can produce and consume more.
“NPR is only supported by 3% from the government.”
With respect, you’ve fallen for NPR’s shell game and lie.
CPB is federally funded, to the tune of some $525 million this year. Most of that goes to regional NPR’s, who then funnel it back to the Mother Ship: NPR.
Wow angry white guy. Did you pull those comments by channeling adolf or trump? I guess it’s about the same thing at the end of the day anyway…
Come and take my freedom of speech.
Your boy, Lincoln, is the only person who has denied freedom of speech and press, comrade.
Oops, the cold hard truth can be problematic, can’t it?
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution.
Try reading it with it comprehension.
Have you heard of it, comrade.
Yes?
You don’t like the Constitution, do you, comrade?
That would make you a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual patriotic Americans, and America.
I wonder what the Biden people are ‘thinking’ of doing about the Texas border issue.
Backing down will look weak.
Taking action will look stupid.
Knowing this administration’s record they will somehow thread the needle and find a way to do something that is both weak and stupid.
They have no way out. They are boxed in. Most likely they will do nothing, but that is likely to result in TX;s actions expanding.
25 states so far have committed their NG and/or razor wire to TX efforts to block the border.
Even Kattie Hobbs has called on Biden to declare an emergency which would end the legal debate and governors would be empowered by federal law to close the border.
John,
Biden and company are boxed in. I hope Governor Abbott’s example will be followed in other states. One hears ‘The Great State of Texas’ and it has shown itself and its governor to be truly great. Meanwhile, it seems the Robert’s Court has been diminished a bit as well.
Yes, and they will blame it on Trump.
Young, Biden and the Dems will say that Trump told the House to kill the bill (Trump says moronic things, impolitic things and things that harm the party and the country) and therefore since there is no bill the border issue is Trump’s fault and the “MAGA” House’s fault. The media will run with it, social media will back them up and Trump will say something else that is dumb and harmful to assist them.
Trump should shut his big mouth, Senate Republicans should smarten the heck up and the House should never sign a bad deal with Biden.
Coming from Wikipedia is all one needs to know.
If you think Wikipedia is biased, become an editor and improve it.
You can’t – left wing nuts have taken ovver so much that any effort to correct bias and error gets erases nearly instantly.
Prove it.
And just to confirm that it’s possible to prove claims like this, I’ll note that Wikipedia archives ALL edits and allows one to compare different versions of every page — just click on the “View history” tab at the top of the page and then choose the right edits and click on “Compare selected revisions”
So it’s quite possible to prove that an edit was introduced and later deleted.
John Say,
Correct.
That is what one of the founding members of Wikipedia has said himself on more than a few occasions.
“Wikipedia is…broken,” controlled by special interests and bad actors, says co-founder
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/05/wikipedia-is-broken-controlled-by-special-interests-and-bad-actors-says-co-founder/
Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/
Again, if John’s claim that “left wing nuts have taken ovver so much that any effort to correct bias and error gets erases nearly instantly” is true, then it should be easy for him to give a few examples to prove it, using the “View history” and “Compare selected revisions” tools.
The Attkisson link doesn’t suggest that “left wing nuts” have taken over Wikipedia, only that there are problems — which any Wikipedia editor would like agree with. The NY Post link does say that Wikipedia is “left-leaning.” Neither link suggests that the reason for this is that right-leaning edits get removed, rather than, for example, that there’s an imbalance between the numbers of left-leaning and right-leaning editors — something that could be corrected if more right-leaning people chose to become editors, which was my point. Sanger is wrong that Fox News is banned. Here’s an example of page that uses Fox News in the references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Faulkner (I’m not saying that it’s used a lot, just saying that it’s clearly not banned). Sanger certainly doesn’t suggest that it’s been taken over by “nuts” of any kind.
Attkisson’s description of her Wikipedia page is largely inconsistent with what currently appears on her Wikipedia page. For example, she says “What persists on my page, however, are sources that are supposedly disallowed by Wikipedia’s policies. They include citations by Media Matters, with no disclosure that it’s a partisan blog,” but the sole mention of Media Matters is a reference to an article titled “Sharyl Attkisson suggests Media Matters was paid to target her,” published in Politico, with nothing using Media Matters itself as a source. The only thing listed for her birthday is her birth year, which appears to be correct, but her birthplace does appear to be incorrect. She says “Another entity quoted on my Wikipedia biographical page to disparage my work is the vaccine industry’s Dr. Paul Offit,” but Offitt appears nowhere on her page. Some of what she says is hard to correct (e.g., she says the page has an “incorrect job history, incorrect birth place,” but she doesn’t state what the correct info is, so her column can’t be used to correct the info on the Wikipedia page or even to check whether the information has since been corrected).
BTW, Wikipedia is definitely imperfect. And it’s certainly possible that it’s left-leaning. But again: the way to correct that is to have more right-leaning people choose to become editors. Dismissing it as a source is not going to improve it.
Left-wing nuts have “taken over” so much because of the abject failure of the judicial branch and Supreme Court.
The judicial branch and Supreme Court have committed egregious crimes of high office and must be impeached for corruption and treason.
The judicial branch has taken a sworn oath to support the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Incidentally, had they provided their unabridged support, there would be no constantly caterwauling former slaves and their bellyaching descendants, who would have been compassionately repatriated, and there would be no “Reconstruction Amendments,” dictated, excuse the pun, by none other than Karl Marx himself.
It’s actually NVR — National Victim Radio. One story after another.
EV Hall: love it. good one.
I used to listen to NPR, from sun up till dinner was ready, everyday.
Sure, they had their left leaning bias but I could still get the news and some of the stories were interesting.
Then 2016 happened and they went all CNN like panel-O-pundits. If there was some bad news they did gold medal worthy mental gymnastics to some how tie it to Trump.
Then they went all woke. A year or so ago, Matt Taibbi even wrote an article about how the only thing on NPR is now race or gender related. Just the other day, I was in the truck, tuned into NPR and sure enough, it was an article about race.
Last week, The Free Press had a great article about Black Democrats in Chicago, suing the city for trying to force Black communities to accept illegal immigrants. The anger the Black community was feeling as the illegals were getting better treatment, services and funding the Black community has been asking for, for decades. These people are so disgusted with the Democrat party, many are not voting this year and even some are considering voting for Trump.
It was a great article. The journalist, a real one, meet and spent time with several community members over a number of days.
I wish everyone could read it, but it is behind a paywall.
I am a paying subscriber.
The democratic party appears to be oblivious to the rate at which they are alienating minorities.
John Say,
True.
The Free Press had an article a month or so ago about Asian’s who were pushing to expand the MAGA idea.
Why?
The woke leftist controlled Democrat party was punishing them for being “successful,” for their hard work ethic, study hard, save money, delayed gratification, that got them ahead of other minorities.
As we saw with the SC ruling on Affirmative action.
Hey! I am not white. But my grandparents knew about a good work ethic, saving money, paying with cash, and they achieved the American dream of home ownership, despite only having a sixth grade education.
My parents went from upper lower economic class to middle class by following the same ideology. Yes, I remember the early lean years of left overs, casseroles, Tupperware parties to make food go further. We had a garden and not as a hobby, but necessity.
So, when I see those woke leftist elites and their cult like followers, I see the old Soviet Union where everyone whom is not of the party elite, suffers, while the party elite enjoys all that they deny the rest of us commoners.
The upside is those like Dennis, useful idiots and useful eaters, will find themselves regulated to the rest of us commoners. They are too stupid to see it, and will continue to support their own suffering.
To which I say, how marvelous!
My taxes should fund this?
Didn’t Tail Gunner Joe warn us of this. Unfortunately he was an even worse messenger than Trump and we may pay the same price for not heeding MAGA type ideology in favor of “fairness and an effort to coexist” type RINO stasis.
There is a problem with Fair – which is why it does not appear in our founding documents.
If you ask 10 people what is “fair” you will get 11 answers.
For the left “coexist” means KowTow to us.
The US DoD budget is now $832 billion, more than 3 times the annual budget of the country that spends the most after us (China), more than 1/3 of all countries’ defense budgets combined, and ~1/8 of the total US budget.
NPR itself gets ~1% of its budget from the government — less than 1 penny per person. Affiliate stations receive additional government funding from local, state and federal sources, but I don’t know their combined budgets and combined government funding, so I cannot tell how much more per person it comes to. I’ll guess that all government funding for NPR and affiliates comes to less than 50 cents per person total.
Tell you what: I’ll cover your $.50 to NPR, and you can cover $.50 from my contribution to the DoD. I bet that the DoD wastes more than NPR’s total budget.
The difference is that the DoD is in “business” to defend the country while NPR is in business to propagandize. Would you like it if your tax dollars were going to pay Sean Hannity? Or if NPR was taken over by Ben Shapiro? It is similar to when the NEA, a tax funded org, was giving money to produce P*ss Christ and you people called us troglodytes for complaining. Of course if there was ever an art object showing a trans person in a jar of urine I am sure you wouldn’t be so sanguine.
According to Fox, “the Government Accountability Office found the federal government is spending upwards of $1.5 billion a year on public relations and advertising.” Some of those advertising dollars go to Fox. So our tax dollars *are* going to pay Sean Hannity, via government advertising buys. I’ll make you the same offer: you can pay for my share of the advertising on Fox, and I’ll pay for your share of the government funds that go to NPR.
And don’t pretend to know what art I find acceptable.
I’ll consider your offer right after you show me the constitutional authority for spending a penny on NPR.
Taxing and Spending Clause.
The surprising thing about this story is that she deleted her posts. I would think she would be proud of them. It is NPR, after all.