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.
The post invoked disinformation. And having lived through it - and being a NPR and PBS fan at the time, I can tell you the vast majority of the sales where to democratic organizations before a whistle blower went to the press.
Regardless, know you know. And knowing is half the battle.
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.