Not a great week for public broadcasting. First, Gwen Ifill of PBS joined the herd of "leftist dullards" who reflexively chided Sarah Palin for saying "party like it's 1773," when she obviously meant 1776, demonstrating it's more important to mock a rightwing exremist than to do a simple Google search on the date. Then, NPR officials fired opinion journalist Juan Williams for expressing an opinion, even joking that he might be crazy for having such an opinion. Critics had a of fun making the obvious point about liberal advocates of tolerance being some of the most intolerant people on the planet and citing all the opinions Nina Totenberg has made that are apparently acceptable to the NPR censors since they conform to liberal orthodoxy.
There's an easy answer: Stop federal funding for both PBS and NPR and let them sink or swim in the marketplace. Then they can spout all the nonsense they want, and I won't have to pay for it. Whatever arguments there have been for public funding of these institutions, they don't really apply anymore. Between cable channels and the growing importance of the Internet, everything is out there, from the most liberal to the most conservative viewpoint, from the worst in quality to the best and everything in between. There's no justification to subsidize one particular viewpont or pay for one definition of "quality" that can't find an audience on its own.
Republicans have threatened to cut off funding in the past, but then they get cold feet. This would be an excellent year for them to make good on the threats. I mean, it's like they're being dared to.
Comments
Leo - Get them off the public payroll!!! Make sure we cover this after January, 2011 when the fiscally conservatives are in power in the House in DC!
Free speech is being curtailed "public interest v individual interest." The beliefs people have are being questioned. Political correctness is now beginning to rule what people think and say. I hate to bring it up, it is probably politically incorrect "Nazi Germany, Hitler."
NPR and PBS are the only two outlets where truly objective news can be heard these days. Personally, I would hate to see them go. You sure as hell don't see such objectivity on the cable news or internet outlets. And, yes, I know, conservatives think there's a liberal bias there. But they always do when anything that is left of Fox 'News' is aired.
Well Lewis, opinions are like sphincters in that everyone has one. Everyone has the right to their opinion and the right to obtain their news from whomever they deem acceptable. The rubbing point here is, I have to pay for your access to the "news" you like, which is patently unfair.
Besides being morally reprehensible (to take my money and pay for your news) it's also absolutely asinine from an economic standpoint to flush $400 million dollars down the CPB porcelain bowl as well.
How can ANYONE (no matter their political affiliation) believe having the government control the press is a good thing?
Just imagine how you would react to PBS & NPR if it were headed up and broadcast by Republicans instead of the current version run by Democrats.
Run by Democrats? That's just nonsense. And we all own the airwaves, at least in theory. Most of which are gunked up by right wing propoganda.
Lewis, Do you seriously think there is ONE registered Republican on the payroll of NPR? Would you cede that point and defer to common sense without us having to play the google & search game?
What I find most nonsensical is the way you guys stick to the blatantly false meme that NPR & PBS are somehow NOT tied to all things liberal, progressive and democrat. At least have the guts to admit that, it makes you look foolish to keep pretending.
When was anything being tied to all things "Progressive" a bad thing? My dictionary has nothing but good, uplifting definitions for the word. We should all aspire to be progressive.
AJ
I completely agree with you on this Leo. Anyone who complains about the left wing or right wing "controlled" media today is seriously out of touch with reality. The proliferation of communication mediums and the virtual non-existant cost of the internet means that each individual can now have their hand in the pot.
Personally, I like to switch back and forth between the O'Reilley/ Beck rightards and the Olbermann/Maddow leftards. I find that getting hit with the most absurd "news" from both extremes at the same time is the only way to jar me from my automaton ways and actually think for myself.
The experience kind of reminds me of an old sci-fi movie I saw where a guy put on special sunglasses that allowed him to see which people were actually aliens and to be able to read all the subliminal messages they had implanted everywhere. But don't worry, if it's too much for somebody to handle, all they have to do is smash the glasses and go back to their brainwashing pundit of choice.
I repeat. NPR is the most unbiased news source around today. They go to painstaking lengths to present all sides to a story, and forbid their reporters from opining. That's more than can be said about any other news outlet. I know I'll probably never convince conservatives of that, but that's because anything that doesn't pander to them is not objective in their view. ( By the way, Phil Marx, the movie you mention is called 'They Live', and it's a good time, for sure)
"They Live" is the movie, a great paranoid fantasy from John Carpenter. I mean, who'd really believe aliens are among us secretly creating mindless consumerism as a way to control us?
Lewis, I enjoy NPR and find their stories to be very informative most of the time. However, there is a major difference between "most unbiased" and actually unbiased. I still maintain that the only way to get the truth is to listen to as many diverse sources as possible.
And regarding NPR's bias, they did not fire Williams for offering an opinion, but rather because he offered an opinion they didn't like. If they followed their own stated rules, they would fire Totenberg as well.
And regarding NPR's government funding, it does not matter how good they are. I have yet to hear any compelling reason why those who don't want to listen should still have to pay for it.
Phil, we all have to pay taxes for things we don't like, or don't consume. I have no kids, yet my taxes help pay for public schools. I have to pay for ridiculous and ineffective abstinence- only programs, a counterproductive war on drugs, and all sorts of other things that I don't like.
And there's a misconception regarding how much of NPR is federally funded. It's less than 10% of their funding, although the member stations get some help, too.
NPR claims 2% and the figure bandied about by them is $420 million a year which I guess we shouldn't worry about right? After all, what's a measly $420 mil get ya these days? (besides maybe 8400 $50,000 a year jobs)
Lewis, you have a right (in fact an obligation) to object to programs paid for by tax dollars you see as wasteful or non productive just as I do.
The common sense reason for NOT funding NPR is that news programming is available everywhere. If you can pick up the signal for an NPR station you can pick up the signal for a hundred other sources as well.
NPR (and PBS) were intended to bring news & programming to a segment of society that was underserved, that is obvviously not the case anymore. The Federal Government should not be in the news business.
The governemnt is too entrencehd in the PROPAGANDA business to be in the NEWS business, anyway.
Right, gang?
;)
I don't see NPR programing as wasteful. I see it as vital.
Lewis, vital to whom?
For those of you that (like Lewis) see NPR as vital, please take a look at the demographics of the NPR audience.
http://www.wqub.org/media/NPR%20Profile%20stats%202009/NPR%20demographics.pdf
Seriously. The listeners are waaaay capable of paying for the tales at Lake Wobegon without taxpayer help.
Ha. And you have the nerve to accuse liberals of class warfare.