The article does not clearly link the government grants to the production of the podcasts, in fact the author wrote, "projects that in some capacity deployed a podcast." This is an annoying argument that seems more like trying to virtue signal about social conservatism than actually detail waste of taxpayer money.
what details are you expecting? all the money came from government grants.
i do agree that this blog has a conservative bent. but, the silliness of the waste is still laid out, right?
all the money came from government grants.
You state something that is not actually stated in the article, which is exactly the kind of conclusion the article wants you to reach. Where in the article does it say that any of these programs were fully government funded?
interesting. maybe I’m missing something then. I read this:
Just since 2020, the federal government paid $324 million in grants to projects that in some capacity deployed a podcast.
I get that “in some capacity” means it wasn’t all $324, but they do give examples:
Regeneration Rising ($446,353 from Department of Agriculture), a podcast about agriculture, features an episode on “building a queer farmer community.”
My assumption is, the amount they show, is the amount the podcast got from the grants in some way. Are you think this isn’t the case and they are being intentionally deceptive?
I must apologize, I got confused as to where the end of the article was, and I see now that there was more to it than I first noted.
no worries. i realized looking again that there was more after the first email form. substack has an annoying interface in that way. it’s about subscriptions not reading.