NPR itself confirmed Thursday that it had cut 10% of its workforce on Thursday, impacting roughly 100 employees, adding that it tends to roll back the workforce from 1,200 to an estimated 1,050 employees, the "largest reduction in staff since the 2008 recession."
"We literally are fighting to secure the future of NPR at this very moment by restructuring our cost structure. It's that important. It's existential," NPR chief executive John Lansing told NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik.
The Court has since had to spend a substantial amount of resources to get to the truth of the matter, including several hearings, a two-day evidentiary proceeding, and countless hours reviewing voluminous briefs. All the while, Google has tried to downplay the problem and displayed a dismissive attitude ill tuned to the gravity of its conduct. Its initial defense was that it had no 'ability to change default settings for individual custodians with respect to the chat history setting,' but evidence at the hearing plainly established that this representation was not truthful.
Why this situation has come to pass is a mystery. From the start of this case, Google has had every opportunity to flag the handling of Chat and air concerns about potential burden, costs, and related factors. At the very least, Google should have advised plaintiffs about its preservation and related approach early in the litigation, and engaged in a discussion with them. It chose to stay silent until compelled to speak by the filing of the Rule 37 motion and the Court's intervention. The Court has repeatedly asked Google why it never mentioned Chat until the issue became a substantial problem. It has not provided an explanation, which is worrisome, especially in light of its unlimited access to accomplished legal counsel, and its long experience with the duty of evidence preservation.
‘John got paid today.
He gave his wife, Jane, $40 to buy pizza and drinks for them and their children.
Jane went and bought the pizza.
John did not fund the pizza. Jane did.’ – Glenn Kessler fact check
When you’re talking to someone who believes in a conspiracy theory, [professor and political scientist at the University of Wisconsin Mike] Wagner said it can be helpful to ask: Who’s benefiting from your believing this? Who’s raising money or making money because of the audience they’ve built from this?
Wagner said that it can be helpful to remind people that if somebody at a mainstream news outlet such as The Washington Post or NPR reports something that’s false, they can be fired.
“People who work for really ideological talk shows or podcasts don’t have the same worry,” Wagner said. “They don’t get in trouble in the same way.”
Soros donated $1 million to a PAC and they donated to Bragg’s campaign. In every other discussion of political funding by big-money donors, EVER, this would be considered ‘funding his campaign’. Not so, when George Soros is the donor, because the Left believes they can shield those criticisms behind garbage smears of antisemitism (more on that later).
We apologize for the grade school math class word problem flashbacks.
Kessler, obviously reeling from the virtual ratio beating he’s been taking, doubled down and blamed the Community Note entry on ‘Twitter trolls’.
LOLOLOL!
We have access to Community Notes, so we can tell you he’s getting fact checked on this tweet too! LOL.
Keep in mind what we’ve told you about how Community Notes work. Notes from trolls do not get displayed. If enough people in the community decide the note is accurate, it will receive enough positive ratings to be displayed. All we can tell you is that it is accurate:
When did Hunter win the presidency?
If we are talking about kids what about the $2 billion Kushner got from Saudi Arabia?
That's the whole Soros didn't pay these DA's story liberals use defending him. Then when the part about him giving money to these PACS is brought out they still fall back on he didn't give them money directly. Then you are called anti- semantic.
Soros is just a bogeyman. Much like CRT and Drag queens. They use these things to scare you into listening to them because they have no policies or ideas that anyone likes.
Please try to think for yourselves for once.
Koch brothers are so 2016.Or for people on the left, Fox News & the Koch brothers.
Koch brothers are so 2016.
That...coming from you.....Please try to think for yourselves for once.