Did the media ever really say they'd stop naming school shooters??
Also, I'm told this wasn't a school shooting.
I know of one who should have been in school
The media is not one thing. Media is plural. Good luck getting "the media" to agree on anything.
They sure can agree on a few things:
Ads make money.
More ads make more money.
Money.
More money.
🦀 money money money 🦀
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?
You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement?
No? I never said anything about embezzlement.
Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?
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.
Did the media ever really say they'd stop naming school shooters??
Also, I'm told this wasn't a school shooting.
I know of one who should have been in school
The media is not one thing. Media is plural. Good luck getting "the media" to agree on anything.
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
I vaguely remember a pinky swear.
For like 2 weeks and they went back to it