Discussion for article #234868
Wanting more of that sweet, sweet megalomaniacal-private-billionaire gravy.
7 Likes
“…publishing a serious opinion magazine has never been a profitable business, and never will be,” Lowry said.
“And why can’t the government operate exactly like a for-profit business?” Lowry added.
18 Likes
“Propaganda ain’t cheap” - Hitler
4 Likes
Wow, they still pack the punch of a third of a WWII-era torpedo…
1 Like
Perhaps Lowry should spend more time watching the bottom line instead of getting “tingly” and fapping to Wasilla Kardashian
4 Likes
Oh, so somebody wants a handout from the federal government and taxpayers. HOW SOCIALIST.
11 Likes
considering all the wars they pimp for, have they thought of asking military contractors for some donations?
1 Like
Is the irony of their new government-subsidized status lost on these anti-socialists? What happened to the righteousness of the free market in all things? What would Karl Marx (and Groucho Marx) say? As usual, rightwing principles are fungible.
9 Likes
I’m not clear from reading this article, if mentioned in the last paragraph, whether Commentary and Mother Jones are tax-exempt too. If not, being a non-profit doesn’t necessarily mean they should be tax-exempt, and equating those publications with National Review would seem misleading. The article should be more clear on this.
6 Likes
“We’re a mission and a cause, not a profit-making business…”
True 'dat. Allergic to profits, one might say. Couldn’t raise money with a tin cup and a cute dog. Considered a waste of dollars. Less fun than actually lighting your cash on fire. Not-selling tons of No One Wants This. An investment black hole.
I could go on…
2 Likes
Grifters gonna grift …
3 Likes
Can the NY Post be far behind?
1 Like
“…publishing a serious opinion magazine has never been a profitable business, and never will be,” Lowry said.
That’s true. But what does that have to do with National Review?
11 Likes
It’s tough out there for a white supremacist magazine.
5 Likes
" Lowry boasted to Politico of the magazine’s 150,000 subscribers and said that non-profit status would allow the magazine to do more fundraising and, significantly, to allow donors to give tax-deductible contributions."
In other words, they’re going to go for 503©(4) status so they can keep their donors secret and ride the dark money sybian machine.
9 Likes
Is the Washington Times a non-profit?
1 Like
These guys trade in reactionary authoritarianism. Their worldview has no room for pesky notions like “irony” or “self-awareness” or “logic.”
1 Like
I wonder how the Mann v. National Review defamation suit is going.
We’re talking some mighty big bucks just in legal fees let alone settlement costs:
3 Likes
May as well go all the way and call it a religion. Get the protection of those RFRA laws, and call everyone nasty names without legal liability.
4 Likes