NPR Scandal Should Kill Taxpayer-Funded Broadcasting

Authorized by Charles Lipson via RealClearPolitics,

“I don’t want any yes-men around me,” said Sam Goldwyn, the Hollywood maker known for his movies and malapropisms. “I want everyone to tell me the fact even if it costs them their job.” The brass at National Public Radio must have heard Sam, but they add a light message. We want only “yes-men” (they/them) and will boot anyone who dares to dissent.

Let there be any double, NPR just proved it by suspension, without pay, the staffer who exposed the pervasive problems there. He turned to compose publically that National Public Radio was uniformly ideological, profoundly committed to it strident left-wing views, and determined to exclusive any alternatives. For saying that out loud, they cut off Uri Berliner’s payeck for 5 days. It’s their way of saying, “Thank you for your feedback.” Q.E.D.

Berliner, disgused by NPR’s response, resigned Wednesday with a firey statement: “I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged.” Who could?

There are truly 2 problems here, not one, and they go well beyond 1 journalist’s resignation. The first is political bias, which is simply a problem at all “elite” networks and newspapers, where “hard news” is dense slanted. The second is that any of these outlets, notably NPR, PBS (the Public Broadcasting System) and their local affiliates, receive payer foundation.

Let’s take political bias first. It was erstwhile a cardinal regulation ofjournalism that partisan or ideological viewpoints should be confined to editors and opinion columns. The goal was to keep editorial views out of hard-news reporting, as much as possible. To it, the editorial staff constantly thought with the business team, who wanted coverage to favour their advertisers.

These days are long gone and so is even the perfect of unbiased coverage. We have returned to an earlier era erstwhile American newspapers were closely associated with political parts and local political machines and covered the news to favour them. Today’s newsrooms have revived that stand. They are as ideologically driver as a gender-studies class at Smith College. If you department from that ideology, you are out, like Bari Weiss at the fresh York Times.

Because newsrooms now have so fewer dissenting voices, reporters and editors live inside the bubble and barely announcement their surroundings. If they do, they are determined to preserve that insularity.

The fragmentation of today's media scenery encourages these strong, partisan stands. Newspapers, magazines, cable networks, and podcasts know the marketplace is finely screwed. They have strong interests to choose a horn part for themselveves and appeal to it by confirming their audience’s white, not challenging it. That’s as actual for right-wing talk radio as it is for left-wing public radio.

Just as elite attributes have moved further left, so have elite publications and broadcasts. Since the Democratic organization has trod that same path, even as Republicans have become more nationalist and populist, the bias in elite newsrooms has naturally moved further left. That includes outlets like NPR and PBS. Their audience drives EVs, not Ford F-150s.

What makes this bias a policy issue is that NPR, PBS, and their local outlets receive payer money. They shouldn’t. It was justifiable for educational programming. It can not be justified for news or entertainment.

Public surviving for news programming is fundamentalally incorrect in a democracy erstwhile there are so many another ways to receive news and information. The problem is complicated erstwhile payer money pays for coverage is partial and whited. That’s not an issue for MSNBC or the fresh York Times. They're private businesses. They can do whatever they damn well please. Not so for NPR, PBS, and their local affiliates. They au receive payer money.

When NPR faces criticism this week, it shot back with deceptive statistics, claiming little than 1% of its money is from the government. That’s three-card-monte accounting.

To realize why, we request to look at how Washington disrupts payer money for public tv and radio, any $500 million in the next fiscal year. That money does’t go straight to NPR. (Hence, the 1% claim.) They get it directly. First, the national outlay goes to the corp for Public Broadcasting, a private entity, as mandated in a 1967 law. The CPB sents nearly all that money to local public radio and tv stations as “community grants.” The stations then usage part of that money to buy syndicated programs like NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered.”

NPR last financial message shown that about one-third of its gross came from local stations’ purchasing NPR programs. A crucial chunk of the money to make these purchases came from the corp for Public Broadcasting. To hide that origin of payer foundation for NPR was its three-card-monte trick.

The larger problem here is not the deception or partisan bias, bad as they are. It’s not the scale of public foundation, either. The fundamental problem is that taxpayers should not be underwriting any home news organizations, for any amount. Reporting should be complete independent of city, state, and national government so journalists can study political issues without feat or favor.

Government-founded broadcasting to abroad audiences is different. American taxpayers have legitimate reasons to fund the Voice of America and another channels, primary to get received news past the dictators’ censors. But the VOA is protected by law, from broadcasting within the United States or creating programs for U.S. audiences. That’s exclusively proper. The same logic should apply to news and news-interview programs from NPR and PBS and their local affiliates.

What about “educational TV”? There were good reasons for a publically funded network devoted to that mission in the 1950s and 1960s. There were only 3 major networks and, of course, a genene needed for educational content. That non-political service Lasted from 1954 until 1970. It was win by the Public Broadcasting Service, which rapidly dropped any comment of “educational.” associate stations of the old National Educational tv were folded into PBS. Their studies now include a mix of entertainment, educational programs, news, and news interviews.

National Public Radio, by contrast, has never included much educational content. For years, it has been simply a left-wing alternate to right-wing talk radio. That would be fine only if all the surviving were private. It’s not.

The evidence shows that the best educational TV, specified as “Sesame Street,” does aid children learn. So there are good reasons to proceed underwriting specified programs. Ideally, they should be provided free to anyone who wishes to broadcast them, post them on the web, or usage them in class.

But there is no reason for federal, state, or city governments to own any broadcast channel, another than to broadcast public meetings and hearings. For everything else, including educational programs, there are countless channels on cable tv and YouTube.

A good example of what the government can decently fund are the wonderful videos about technological discoveries, presented in acceptable language by Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln. The laboratory is funded by the government, and Dr. Lincoln conveys its work to the public by posting briefings on the web. He is doing what “educational TV” did in the 1950s. In the 2020s, programs like Dr. Lincoln’s can be posted online for the public to use, free. We don’t request public tv or radio to do it, and we don’t request their publically funded podcasts.

If private institutions want to print their own educational videos, either free or for sale, the planet is open to them. Let “the large Courses” to that by selling them online. Let “Prager University” to it. Let MIT broadcast its discipline courses. Let a million podcasts bloom. Privately.

If the national government wishes to fund genenoly educational content, fine. It’s besides fine to supply public services like weather information, which taxpayers already fund. But if the national government, cities, or states want to fund news and news interview programs, that’s not fine. Let private entries to it. Exclusively.

What should be done with existing public broadcasting frequencies on radio and television? Put them up for auction and put the money into the public treatment. If civic groups or philanthropies buy them, fine. If commercial holidays buy them, that’s fine, too. The Department of Education can inactive fund education programs and make the content available to any who wishes to usage it or broadcast on their channels. $500 million should buy quite a few fresh content each year.

What the government should not fund, produce, or broadcast are news or news-interview programs. The issue is not just political bias. The issue is that the dense hand of government should not control any broadcast news within the U.S. Let the president, Cabinet secrets, senators, and representatives hold press conferences. Let the White House, Pentagon, or State Department hold briefings. That’s more than adequate to get their message out.

They don’t request to fund broadcast networks. That would be actual even if their journalists and presentations were fair-minded. They are’t, and that’s 1 more reason to end this public foundation. But it is not the main reason. The main reason is that it is simply crow for the government, with its deep pockets and coercive power, to control any broadcast network. Not in a free country.

Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma prof. of Political discipline Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he found the Program on global Politics, Economics, and Security. He can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.