NPR Funding Debate
So, the question is: Should National Public Radio (NPR) continue receiving government funding?
Indeed, I believe that the government should provide funding to NPR, just as it does to other public educational sources, particularly in today’s heavily biased-for-profit media arena. It’s hard to find a balanced news source nowadays, and NPR endeavors to be as unbiased as can be attained. In this country at least, NPR is one of the last news organizations that values truth above hype and zealous opinion. This is why it’s so important that they not cave to this republican pressure, because that would slant their coverage, biasing it toward the republicans. Not a good idea. Government can fund radio and television as long as it does not dictate what is broadcast beyond basic guidelines of decency. Funding NPR is testimonial to the preservation of free speech, and our government’s allegiance to that ideal. I’m glad the government funds some of NPR; not much though, just a few percent of total costs I think.
CBS tends to be middle-of-the-road though sometimes seems to favor democratic policies. The same is true to a lesser degree of CNN, and particularly true of MSNBC, thus the labels “liberal media” or “lame street media” that Sarah Palin often speaks of. NPR endeavors to remain strictly non partisan in their reporting because they’re not trying to cater to a particular group. MSNBC on the other hand earns much of its revenue from democrats while Fox News gets much of its money from republicans. So both are biased by the dollar. NPR however, is far less so, to any particular party. Profit itself does not make for bias. But it’s who the profit is coming from that can, and does in the cases of Fox News, MSMBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and just about any other for-profit news gathering organization.
The information here should establish that there is indeed a liberal bias in the mainstream media.
Further, I would add that if people weren’t indirectly funding this sort of news by watching it in big numbers, then this bias would not be profitable, and if this bias weren’t profitable, then we’d see far less of it.
Each sect of the media has a clientele, and in order to remain viable, they report news with the sorts of bents that their viewers / readers expect in the groups to which they’re appealing. I’m more liberal than conservative. So I would not generally watch Fox News. But if Fox wanted to get me to watch, then they would report from a less-right perspective. Many people choose the news they watch (or not) like this, including the avid Fox News viewers.
The correct bias can get you the most money in reporting, except in the case of NPR, which has no profit motive. So while this does not totally eliminate bias in NPR news, it does remove one big reason for such bias to exist. Thus, I believe the government should continue providing money for such a noteably non partisan service like NPR.
Further, I only have so much time to sort the wheat from the chafe when listening to news, and am therefore grateful that a government-funded service like NPR exists, to filter out much of the extremist views, exaggerations, and blatant falsehoods found frequently in certain outlets in the mainstream media. The government money funds a higher standard in news reporting than what you’d generally find at large. So as a tax payer, I’m glad there’s a service available to cut through the gunk as it were.
March 17th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Any group that NPR MAY slant to (if any), is more eclectic than that served by most other news organizations. NPR serves republicans, democrats, and tea partiers alike, along with Catholics, Muslims, et al. Of course, there are some things they could broadcast that would anger enough of their benefactors to pull enough money to knock NPR off the air. So yes, NPR is not totally immune from losses in funds should they broadcast something unpopular to their base.
However, from its inception, NPR’s mission has been to cultivate and cater to a very broad, varied, and wholly representative base of support. The government dollars (in part) help NPR sustain this non partisan modus operandi.
With such a multi-origin base, that initially was made possible through government funding, the chances of NPR angering enough donors to make a serious dent in their operating funds, by broadcasting a particular sentiment or bent, is way reduced. As I have acknowledged already, NPR is still subject to the whims of particular bents in its base; not doubt about it. But with so many bents comprising its base, it’d be more difficult than in a for-profit service, for one or a few points of view to “hijack” NPR’s eclectic agenda.