Don’t speak for us, Norby Newsfeed. Glad to see you came out as non-binary.
2 Likes
A $240,000,000 settlement - meaning $240,000,000 less profit, would not save over $200 Million in taxes. That’s ridiculous. That would be an 83% tax rate.
From ChatGPT:
Short answer: No—there’s no evidence that congressional hearings “determined” NPR or PBS were “91% against T.”
Here’s what actually happened:
1) Congressional hearings did accuse bias—but didn’t produce a “91%” finding
- In 2025, a House subcommittee hearing (led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene) criticized NPR and PBS for alleged left-leaning bias. (The Guardian)
- Lawmakers and some witnesses made political claims and arguments, but hearings like this don’t issue formal statistical determinations about coverage percentages.
There’s no credible record from those hearings of an official metric like “91% against T.”
2) Where the “91%” claim likely comes from
The number you’re referencing is often circulated online, but it typically traces back to:
- Partisan analyses or media studies (sometimes from advocacy groups)
- Selective methodologies (e.g., counting “negative vs. positive mentions” with subjective criteria)
These are not official congressional findings, and different studies often produce very different numbers depending on methodology.
3) What was formally determined (by courts, not Congress)
Recent legal rulings are more concrete:
- A federal judge ruled that efforts to defund NPR/PBS based on alleged bias were unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.” (AP News)
- The ruling didn’t validate or quantify bias—it focused on First Amendment protections, not whether coverage was fair.
Bottom line
- Congressional hearings raised accusations of bias—that’s true.
- They did NOT establish or verify a “91% anti-T” statistic.
- That figure is not an official or widely accepted factual finding.
If you want, I can track down the exact study or source that produced the “91%” number and break down how they calculated it—that’s usually where the real story is.
1 Like
It was more of than that one payment that they’ve paid you out in “libel-slander” settlements. So maybe not ridiculous at all if you dig a little.
Ahh, yes, you did say settlements plural and I missed it. However, it is still silly to look at this overall as a benefit for the company. These settlements are a real loss to their bottom line, yes they are deductible as they would be for any company no matter the size. Of course when you lose money or have higher costs your tax bill will be less - just like any company no matter the size. Do they “benefit” by having lower taxes?
Sure, but wouldn’t you rather have more profit even if it meant higher taxes? It isn’t like this is some tax strategy, pay out these big settlements so you can save on taxes! They do have an economic loss.
Let’s get sued, pay a huge settlement, so we can write it off… said no one ever.
The point is that they profited off the lies and were able to write off those ill-gotten profits. The tax benefit removed the risk and arguably incentivized it.
Treating those losses like any other business expense is certainly one way to look at it.
Besides, whether you agree with the tax treatment or not, the fact remains that it resulted in less tax collected. Since we operate at a deficit already, the settlements become at least partially taxpayer funded.
Sure, they profited first and paid taxes on those profits.
Then, they paid lawyer fees, settlements, etc. which cost them a bunch and took away some of those profits. So then, their later tax bill was lower - which I guess in effect is a rebate because of the lowered profits. I don’t see it as any sort of incentive.
In essence its a timing issue. They paid more in taxes in year 1 because they had more profit (some of which considered ill gotten). Then paid less in taxes in year 2 because they had to pay consequences of the ill gotten profits.
That’s the way they are treated under the law. That is the way a settlement would be treated if you had a company that was sued too. Should the law be changed? Sure, make that argument if you believe it.
Maybe, just maybe, you make the law that that type of thing is not fully deductible for companies of a certain size… because big huge corporations have an easier time calling it the cost of doing business than does a smaller business that might have a similar type of lawsuit or settlement.
Anyways, this is way off topic so I will stop here.
It’s likely another made up stat. The 90-92% range is generally a tell.
4 Likes
Nice try Justin. npr not biased? Here is a one second search. Enjoy the video:
I can manipulate AI too. These headlines are not inventions. They are black and white and real.
Can you summarize what Foghorn Leghorn says? Does he mention 91%?
You can’t expect anyone to watch the full video, and I don’t think you did. One would have to hate themselves to watch 25 minutes of this, no matter who the politician was.
It’s a partisan congressman saying partisan things.
1 Like
Sure…“Look at all this bias! Notice how I categorize everything that’s not positive is negative. Boom 92%”
1 Like
The reason the judge did this is clearly to go after DJT like other/same types judges have done. It is despicable and speak clearly on why some do not accept the people’s choice. What do you call it? Oh yeah resist.
That’s a pretty concise summary of the news. We don’t have stories on the
million commuters that successfully cross thru Houston daily. It’s the guy that
drives in the emergency lane and hits the stalled car that is news. This admin
just happens to “hit” lots people with glee.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with his illegal and extralegal policies. Nothing at all. There’s a reason a lot of what he does hasn’t been tried before. Because it’s not legal, or not done in polite society.
It amazing how he’s such a victim, yet can hurt so many other people in the process.
1 Like
Not legal? On what does Jason and Chris’ taxes should go to npr and pbs? What ground? You know how California taxes.
The grounds being that’s how taxes work? We all send money and those who we elect in the legislative branch make those decisions. Powers of the purse and all.
Presidents don’t get to defund by fiat. That’s illegal.
3 Likes
Yeah, someone conveniently forgot how our government works.
3 Likes
Whether it is PBS funding or student loan forgiveness, ALL appropriations are Congress’ responsibility.
The President can’t authorize or cut appropriations via royal decree.
In any event, PBS and NPR BENEFIT UH.
So why would any true blue Coog be opposed to funding them?
2 Likes
Look, there are probably dozens and dozens of things taxes go to fund that
somebody is not for. From manned space missions to studying deep sea ecosystems to many many things in between. There is always somebody that is against something. For some, even declared federal holidays ! Government can’t work if funding can be illegally taken.
2 Likes