Excuse me if I wade into a debate which admittedly does not affect me in any way - the question of whether the American taxpayer should be required to continue its funding of NPR. It is, however, an interesting debate and I simply cannot resist.
As a frequent visitor to the States, I listen to NPR quite a lot. I have breakfast while the Dian Rehm show is on. I listen to the Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor, and I love Car Talk with brothers Click and Clack. In the evenings there is continuous Jazz on our local NPR affiliate. So I am a fan. I find the political discussions generally biased in a liberal direction. That frequently irritates me, but I have an easy solution. When I can't take it any more, I turn the station off.
If Americans needed to be reminded why NPR should stop receiving tax payer money, the Schillers did an excellent job of that. Ron Schiller was the Executive VP in charge of fund raising, who in a conservative "sting" operation made no bones of the fact that he is a committed liberal who believes that the Republican party and especially the Tea Party supporters are stupid, extremely racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic. Democrats are much smarter according to Ron, but apparently not so smart that they know when to keep their mouths shut and to recognize when they are being set up. But no matter; Ron was fired and now joins several other high ranking NPR executives who have recently lost their jobs.
Vivian Schiller was the NPR CEO who was fired (or in the parlance of high level firings - "resigned") for a few reasons. For one thing, she hired Ron Schiller. She also badly bungled the firing of Juan Williams. In short, things have been going badly for NPR in recent days under her watch.
Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with radio and television anchors, fundraisers, or other employees to have political views and biases on important issues of the day. I would be shocked if they did not. People who work in these fields are obviously very interested in politics and current affairs, and probably very well informed. Of course they have views. And they should not be afraid to express them! BUT, when they are working for a publicly funded outfit and are counting on the tax dollars of the very people they disdain and insult, well then something is clearly wrong. It is one thing to think middle Americans who support conservative causes are stupid and racist, but quite another to have these very same people forced to support you and your organization. That is "Chutzpah".
Ron Schiller was right in one thing he said to the fake Muslim Brotherhood putative donors. NPR does not need public money and would be better off without it. It would liberate them from from the shackles of political correctness; it would allow them to openly tell the listener how they feel about things, instead of having to skulk around the water cooler, disdaining their fellow Americans in secret. Listeners who don't like what they hear can tune in to something else. People who do like it can offer their financial support in terms of donations to keep their stations alive and flourishing. We in Alberta have done just that with internationally acclaimed radio station CKUA.
Perhaps public funding made sense when radio and television stations needed the money so that people in smaller, rural communities could have access to entertainment and news, particularly when it was not commercially viable for private broadcasters to access these areas. But now with satellite, internet, and a gzillion choices, most of them free and easily accessible, is there any need to publicly fund news and entertainment outlets? And when Americans see the mountain of government debt that the US has accumulated, the escalating costs of health care, and cutbacks in all sorts of more important services, it is not surprising to see that the majority of those recently polled (see my last posting) want this public funding support of NPR to stop. Maybe thanks in part to the Schillers it now will.
FOLLOW UP:
Another suspended NPR employee for falling into yet another trap and apparently agreeing to protect an "anonymous" donor from government scrutiny. Also a letter from NPR journalists expressing outrage at Ron Schiller's comments. See here.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteYou generally praise NPR, then say it should stop receiving public funding because two senior people have misbehaved. But why even mention those incidents? Your further statement of basic political conservatism -- that government should not do what people can do for themselves -- reveals that you oppose public funding for NPR regardless of those incidents.
(A weird opinion, given that, your ideology aside, NPR has done so much good that the public sector has not done.)
Ron C
Welcome back Ron.
ReplyDeleteITP missed you.
On your substantive points Ron, please read my post again. It is a little more substantive then is stated in your comment.
ReplyDeleteI did not argue for defunding of NPR because "two senior people misbehaved". I also do not dispute that NPR has some good shows. My argument was based on the following:
(i) public funding is not necessary - that is what Schiller the Vice President in charge of funding himself said;
(ii) there is a serious debt crisis in the US with much, much more important things to fund;
(iii) NPR is a politically and ideologically biased outlet which should be funded privately by those who support it;
(iv) those who do not support NPR and its slant should not be forced to fund it through tax dollars;
(v) NPR would be liberated by cutting off public funds - it could then say what it wants and feels without fear. The market place would speak as it has done with other cable news outlets.
ITP
This is worth reading:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/npr_tripped_up_by_its_own_elitism_Mb5IhZ6L3QbY0vvkdJWGyM