My point was simply that if UGA wanted to be profitable w/o the help of the state it could be. Bad Luck then went ballistic. My other point was that private universities are always profitable (at least those that want to stay in business). I cited Harvard as an example.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:30:00 PM (view original):
My point was simply that if UGA wanted to be profitable w/o the help of the state it could be. Bad Luck then went ballistic. My other point was that private universities are always profitable (at least those that want to stay in business). I cited Harvard as an example.

I didn't go ballistic (???), I just showed that the UGA schools aren't profitable and we can't play make-believe.

I am talking about UGA the SEC school. My point to trolltang was that private colleges are always profitable and state schools always build cash. That is all.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):
I am talking about UGA the SEC school. My point to trolltang was that private colleges are always profitable and state schools always build cash. That is all.

We agree.

Well...um...ok, other than the fact that a lot of private schools (Harvard, Stanford, etc) are legally non-profits, yeah, they have a ****-load of cash. It's why those two (and all other Ivy League schools) offer free tuition and room and board to any student accepted whose parents make less than $150k (I think that's the number).

Public schools, on the other hand, aren't turning a profit. They rely on state subsidies to exist.

Anyway tang and I agree. And my Biased Media page has been hijacked!!!! UGH!!!!

I wonder how Harvard can afford to do that? Hmmmmm......LOL

NFP does not mean they don't make money, that's just a tax play. This is the last we discuss this here. If you want to discuss this we can create a separate page.

Half of Americans can’t name a news source they consider objective

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/17/16897870/americans-cant-name-objective-news-source

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Anyway tang and I agree. And my Biased Media page has been hijacked!!!! UGH!!!!

I wonder how Harvard can afford to do that? Hmmmmm......LOL

NFP does not mean they don't make money, that's just a tax play. This is the last we discuss this here. If you want to discuss this we can create a separate page.

I'm not arguing about private schools. Yeah, they make money.

Public schools do not.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Half of Americans can’t name a news source they consider objective

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/17/16897870/americans-cant-name-objective-news-source

Half of Americans are too dumb to remember the name of a newspaper like NYT.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Well...um...ok, other than the fact that a lot of private schools (Harvard, Stanford, etc) are legally non-profits, yeah, they have a ****-load of cash. It's why those two (and all other Ivy League schools) offer free tuition and room and board to any student accepted whose parents make less than $150k (I think that's the number).

Public schools, on the other hand, aren't turning a profit. They rely on state subsidies to exist.

The legal (more accurately "tax") designation of a not-for-profit is a sham.... Do you remember back years ago when we called them "non-profits"? That went away when people realized that several of the "charitable" organizations were, in fact, wildly profitable and paid huge salaries to their boards/employees. So they had to change the designation to allow them to actually generate profits, as if saying "not-for-profit" made their missions more honorable.

Do you think the idea of subjectivity in reporting is impossible?

Posted by toddcommish on 1/19/2018 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Well...um...ok, other than the fact that a lot of private schools (Harvard, Stanford, etc) are legally non-profits, yeah, they have a ****-load of cash. It's why those two (and all other Ivy League schools) offer free tuition and room and board to any student accepted whose parents make less than $150k (I think that's the number).

Public schools, on the other hand, aren't turning a profit. They rely on state subsidies to exist.

The legal (more accurately "tax") designation of a not-for-profit is a sham.... Do you remember back years ago when we called them "non-profits"? That went away when people realized that several of the "charitable" organizations were, in fact, wildly profitable and paid huge salaries to their boards/employees. So they had to change the designation to allow them to actually generate profits, as if saying "not-for-profit" made their missions more honorable.

???

I’m pretty sure Harvard is still a non-profit.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/take-away-harvards-nonprofit-status.html

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 3:04:00 PM (view original):
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/take-away-harvards-nonprofit-status.html

Whether they should be or not, isn’t really the question.

Posted by tangplay on 1/19/2018 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Do you think the idea of subjectivity in reporting is impossible?

Your question is self answering. You used the term idea.

Objectivity in reporting is an ideal. A goal. Because reporting is done by humans (who have some bias on most topics) and published by businesses (who are concerned with their readers political tendencies) it is always out of reach and any single news report should always be considered along with the entirety of the reporting done on that topic. Is it impossible? Well, we can try can't we?

IMO, (in BIG BIG general) the News reporting nowadays makes attempts to stay neutral on topics (with some obvious exceptions like Fox) but largely gets off track into bias.
It was way worse in the 1800's and quite some better in the 1950's thru 70's.