The Observer says:

were obtained by non-profit-making investigations company Spinwatch,

Non-profit making?

Seems so:

Spinwatch is an independent non-profit making organisation

The choice of language there shows idiot leftism at its best.

Not making a profit is actually quite easy. General Motors managed it for years.

What they mean is \”not for profit\”, that is they don\’t seek to make profits rather than they don\’t make profits.

But this linguistic trip up is illustrative of a mindset. That if you seek to make profits then you will: capitalism is just that easy, y\’kno? Just no awareness of the fact that four out of five new organisations that attempt to make profits fail to do so.

5 thoughts on “Spinwatch”

  1. Well they’re not exactly ‘non profit making’ are they? If they were they’d all be working for free. Instead they are getting some income in from the usual suspects (Rowntree Trust etc) which presumably pays the contributors for at least some of their time and effort.

    Providing labour in return for money is fairly profitable in my experience.

  2. I find it difficult to comprehend how somebody can think the BBC biased in favour of Israel yet set themselves up to oppose spin? Cognitive dissonance has nothing on these folks.

    Oh, and you’re only a couple of clicks away from the “Glasgow Media Group” and this nonsense:

    This book shows how the release of the free market in the last part of the twentieth century produced a rise in inequality and violence, the development of a huge criminal economy and the degradation of social and cultural life.

  3. Pingback: FCAblog » Free schools and profits

  4. What they mean is “not for profit”, that is they don’t seek to make profits rather than they don’t make profits.

    That doesn’t happen either. I worked for the American Bureau of Shipping for years, who are a not for profit company. They sought to make the biggest profit from their activities possible, which they could then plough back into the company by paying hefty salaries to its directors maintaining fancy, wholly unnecessary offices in swanky locations, and lining its corridors with oil paintings thus showing a net profit of zero when the accounts were filed. Their determination to maximise their revenue is no less cut-throat than that of profit-making ventures. I suspect the same is true for a lot of charities, especially ones like the NSPCC whose purpose seems to be to generate as much revenue as possible, divvy it up amongst senior staff, and throw just enough at “child services” to avoid serious questions being asked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *