To be fair, this was a long time ago - it's a quick reminder that I am a lot older then I remember - in the late 90s, NPR and CPB member stations were caught selling their membership lists. There was a compromise that preserved CPB and NPR funding in 1999 that explicitly forbid them from doing so: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-21-mn-58123...

> in the late 90s, NPR and CPB member stations were caught selling their membership lists

The article specifically says partner television stations and apparently some sold their lists to Republican campaigns too ("including the 1996 presidential campaign of Sen. Bob Dole").

Your initial statement "NPR that sold it's subscriber list to the Democratic party" doesn't appear to be correct at all if this was the end of the story.

COV was the entity that solid it. cPB was behind the TV stations, PBS and NPr.

> COV was the entity that solid it

Assuming you meant "CPB" and "sold" here, no, it wasn't.

> cPB was behind the TV stations, PBS and NPr.

You'll have to be a lot more specific about what "behind" means here, though, because your entire (mis)recollection is based on it.

There's no interpretation of these events in which NPR sold anything, though.

Ok. This seems to be well before my time on the Hill.

Imo, you can't really compare NPR in 1999 with NPR in 2024 - almost everyone who was senior in the organization back then will have already retired 15-20 years ago, and their funding structure today is much more donor and advertiser driven than it ever was in the 1990s.

So you blew the disinformation whistle, find out that it happened, but then argue from statute of limitations that it doesn't matter. But if NPR agreed with the type of argument you're making, then I don't think they would make a point of covering stuff like reparations-related grievances constantly.

Trust comes more easily for individuals / news organizations / political groups when we're all more focused on the framing of arguments on their own merits, with less focus on the in-groups/out-groups of who those arguments are against or who they are supporting.

Asking for a source isn't "blowing the disinformation whistle". It is a healthy thing. We should be skeptical about what we read on anonymous forums. Curiosity to know more and attempts to vet information is a good thing.

Also the source doesn't back up the claim at all. The linked article:

1. Isn't about NPR. It was about some affiliate Corporation for Public Broadcasting TV stations.

2. Points out it wasn't exclusive about selling to democrat campaigns. As mentioned in the article, Bob Dole's campaign was involved.