He just resigned. "I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don't support calls to defund NPR. I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay."
His piece had some problems (especially not seeking a response from NPR) but the overall point about lack of viewpoint diversity was valid. I've noticed NPR get more liberal since Trump was elected. I suppose that reflects the polarization that happened to the whole country under his watch, but that doesn't make it good. I've been tuning in mostly for the (still excellent) arts coverage and avoiding the political news.
NPR needs fixing, and as conservatives have argued persuasively about the police, you DON'T fix an institution by defunding it. Exactly how to fix it is above my pay grade, but at the executive level and among the rank and file there needs to be more humility, curiosity, open-mindedness and willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. All the hallmarks of old-fashioned journalism.
Sadly, a lot of people who are criticizing NPR and calling for its defunding are the LEAST likely to support independent, unbiased journalism and the MOST likely to support partisan outlets that reinforce their own worldview -- the same sin they're accusing NPR of. That Bible verse about the splinter in your brother's eye comes to mind...
"NPR needs fixing, and as conservatives have argued persuasively about the police, you DON'T fix an institution by defunding it."
There's a big difference between an institution, like police, whose disappearance would literally cause murderous anarchy .... and a government funded media outlet whose disappearance would make you go to CNN instead. No?
I'm not sold on the "it needs fixing" concept. I see more ill than good when the government decides to be in the news business.
Different institutions with different roles, but the same concept applies. Defunding something doesn't make it better. You can't cut your way to excellence (and believe me, my company has tried!).
I wasn't suggesting that the government should be the one doing the fixing. Change at NPR has to come from within. Defunding NPR would be government interference in public media, and I think we can agree that's a bad idea. That money shouldn't have political strings attached. (Ugh, flashbacks to the Piss Christ affair...)
"Defunding NPR would be government interference in public media" -- not sure I understand this. I believe that the government funding of NPR is interference in public media, just as if they decided to give our tax dollars to the New York Times.
And that's the overarching principle for me: should the Federal government be in the business of supporting/creating/funding news organizations. Outside of Voice of America -- designed to be, in essence, a PR arm of the government to the world, why on earth should we forcibly take money from citizens to pay for a news operation?
Even if it were a good one, I would oppose it in principle. The fact that it's become a political tool just drives that point home.
Funding is one thing, but the more important principle for me is whether the government influences news organizations.
Defunding NPR would be interference because you're fiddling with the status quo (the NYT is different because the government has never funded it and shouldn't) and changing the established rules by which that money is awarded. Right now it's a blank check based on the general idea that public media serves a public good, without a tacit endorsement of NPR's editorial line. If you take that money away for political reasons, you're turning NPR into a political football that can be funded or defunded depending on which party is in power and how NPR slants its coverage. Once that funding is politicized, you can't unring that bell. (I'd feel the same way if a liberal administration threatened to defund NPR for being too conservative.)
As for taxes, they're part of the social contract and self-governance through elected representation. The government will always be funding something that some taxpayer somewhere disagrees with, but that's just part of representative democracy. We can elect people to control the purse strings, but we can't directly pick and choose where our taxes go.
This has been a great exchange! Go ahead and have the last word.
NPR has been a leftist mouthpiece for as long as I can remember. If that were not the case, their product would appeal to a much larger audience. There is no justification for taxpayers to fund one-sided bilge that's intentionally misleading, while omitting legitimate factual perspectives ........ America already has an abundance of leftist propaganda-networks that cost the taxpayer "0."
I encourage you to read Uri Berliner's piece, which makes a convincing case that in the last decade NPR has gone from garden-variety liberal (in an open-minded way that still appealed to conservative listeners) to scolding, moralizing, activist progressive.
I'd draw a distinction between liberal and "leftist." For leftist, tune into Pacifica radio sometime. "That's the latest from the battle against Zionism. And now a message from Mumia Abu-Jamal..." I'm not exaggerating!
As they say, the truth hurts. NPR is being forced to look in the mirror but, in the end, will likely just cover-up the reflection and go on as usual.
He just resigned. "I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don't support calls to defund NPR. I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay."
His piece had some problems (especially not seeking a response from NPR) but the overall point about lack of viewpoint diversity was valid. I've noticed NPR get more liberal since Trump was elected. I suppose that reflects the polarization that happened to the whole country under his watch, but that doesn't make it good. I've been tuning in mostly for the (still excellent) arts coverage and avoiding the political news.
NPR needs fixing, and as conservatives have argued persuasively about the police, you DON'T fix an institution by defunding it. Exactly how to fix it is above my pay grade, but at the executive level and among the rank and file there needs to be more humility, curiosity, open-mindedness and willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. All the hallmarks of old-fashioned journalism.
Sadly, a lot of people who are criticizing NPR and calling for its defunding are the LEAST likely to support independent, unbiased journalism and the MOST likely to support partisan outlets that reinforce their own worldview -- the same sin they're accusing NPR of. That Bible verse about the splinter in your brother's eye comes to mind...
"NPR needs fixing, and as conservatives have argued persuasively about the police, you DON'T fix an institution by defunding it."
There's a big difference between an institution, like police, whose disappearance would literally cause murderous anarchy .... and a government funded media outlet whose disappearance would make you go to CNN instead. No?
I'm not sold on the "it needs fixing" concept. I see more ill than good when the government decides to be in the news business.
Different institutions with different roles, but the same concept applies. Defunding something doesn't make it better. You can't cut your way to excellence (and believe me, my company has tried!).
I wasn't suggesting that the government should be the one doing the fixing. Change at NPR has to come from within. Defunding NPR would be government interference in public media, and I think we can agree that's a bad idea. That money shouldn't have political strings attached. (Ugh, flashbacks to the Piss Christ affair...)
"Defunding NPR would be government interference in public media" -- not sure I understand this. I believe that the government funding of NPR is interference in public media, just as if they decided to give our tax dollars to the New York Times.
And that's the overarching principle for me: should the Federal government be in the business of supporting/creating/funding news organizations. Outside of Voice of America -- designed to be, in essence, a PR arm of the government to the world, why on earth should we forcibly take money from citizens to pay for a news operation?
Even if it were a good one, I would oppose it in principle. The fact that it's become a political tool just drives that point home.
Funding is one thing, but the more important principle for me is whether the government influences news organizations.
Defunding NPR would be interference because you're fiddling with the status quo (the NYT is different because the government has never funded it and shouldn't) and changing the established rules by which that money is awarded. Right now it's a blank check based on the general idea that public media serves a public good, without a tacit endorsement of NPR's editorial line. If you take that money away for political reasons, you're turning NPR into a political football that can be funded or defunded depending on which party is in power and how NPR slants its coverage. Once that funding is politicized, you can't unring that bell. (I'd feel the same way if a liberal administration threatened to defund NPR for being too conservative.)
As for taxes, they're part of the social contract and self-governance through elected representation. The government will always be funding something that some taxpayer somewhere disagrees with, but that's just part of representative democracy. We can elect people to control the purse strings, but we can't directly pick and choose where our taxes go.
This has been a great exchange! Go ahead and have the last word.
Hah! I will!
I'm fine with fiddling with the status quo. Call it a political football, but I fundamentally believe it's a game our government shouldn't be playing.
I'm good with schools, roads, missiles and more, but not news sites. (Or restaurants ... we know those would suck too, no matter the good intentions.)
NPR has been a leftist mouthpiece for as long as I can remember. If that were not the case, their product would appeal to a much larger audience. There is no justification for taxpayers to fund one-sided bilge that's intentionally misleading, while omitting legitimate factual perspectives ........ America already has an abundance of leftist propaganda-networks that cost the taxpayer "0."
I encourage you to read Uri Berliner's piece, which makes a convincing case that in the last decade NPR has gone from garden-variety liberal (in an open-minded way that still appealed to conservative listeners) to scolding, moralizing, activist progressive.
I'd draw a distinction between liberal and "leftist." For leftist, tune into Pacifica radio sometime. "That's the latest from the battle against Zionism. And now a message from Mumia Abu-Jamal..." I'm not exaggerating!
Time to purge NPR & rebrand National Patriots Radio & Hire MAGA Team to run
Or raze it or reuse Hq for local homeless issue
Too biased to use 87 Dems & No Republicans on staff