>On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.
It is irrelevant to most of the controversy, however. The original Twitter label declared that NPR did not have editorial independence from the government.
This is as silly as the argument saying the 1st amendment isn't violated by social media when you have the government literally asking these companies for censorship.
Obviously all businesses are beholden to someone. Yes you should always have an interest in what/who companies are beholden to.
There's a reason Nike and Apple don't chastise the Chinese government.
It's continued abuse of language in the hopes of making it impossible for people to determine what's true -- in the hopes of making people give up even caring about facts.
NPR knew the democrats would be back in power in a couple of years...they weren't risking much by being anti-Trump. But they did gain goodwill from the democrats, which can extend them support every time they are in power.
I am not arguing for or against either side, I am just pointing out a flaw in your logic.
I think NPR is so solidly on the democrats side, that it's hard to distinguish what came first: the chicken or the egg?
I do not see a flaw in their logic:
> NPR continuing to publish programming critical of Trump during the Trump presidency, is a pretty strong indication they have editorial independence.
That is a strong indicator. An indicator that may not convince everyone by itself, but I do not see any flaw in their logic.
'Trump proposes eliminating federal funding for PBS, NPR' https://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eli...