Should NPR be De-Funded?

 

While I'm a fan of NPR and give to my local NPR stations, Dan thinks the argument for de-funding is stronger. Dan has sent us this:

Excellent podcast by NPR's Planet Money. They present both sides of the issue fairly. I think the strongest argument was made by those who think NPR should be de-funded.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/03/28/134863998/the-friday-podcast-economists-on-federal-funding-for-npr

Comments

[Tim]

I mentioned three specific topics that NPR is biased on - the Church, abortion, and gay "marriage." I've heard this bias on NPR literally for 20 years, and I've had enough of it.

I'm not asking that NPR be discontinued, but only that they no longer air their leftist opinions as news with the assistance of my tax dollars.

[Bill Bush]

Charles N: Take a moment, please, to go back and read an unedited transcript of the whole thing. What was made to appear as Schiller's words was his description of the attitudes of other people. As far as his personal opinion on defunding, that is all that was: a personal opinion. Schiller was not a policy person at NPR, and they refused the offered money.

FWIW, as long as some of my tax money goes to pay the conservatives on the Supreme court and buy scooters for the Teabaggers, I feel entitled to a little ear candy.

I'm going to listen to the podcast this evening, after I get back from the afternoon movies. I'll probably return to this topic after that.

[Keith B.]

The funding model for NPR-primarily voluntary listener contributions-is already more "free market" than several noted public broadcasters, including BBC, CBC, and ABC (Australia). CBC and ABC are funded directly by taxpayers; in the U.K. everybody who owns a TV or radio pays a tax that supports the various BBC services.

As to political "bias", anyone who thinks NPR is too liberal should try Pacifica Radio (http://www.pacifica.org). I consider Pacifica far left; NPR slightly left-of-center; Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, far right.

[Bill Bush]

A comment I made earlier this afternoon seems not to have posted. In it I promised to listen to the podcast and return to the topic. I have done so, but I do regret that my comment etherized. Maybe it is sitting in a moderation que? Anyway...

OK, I just finished listening to the podcast, and it did not persuade me that defunding NPR is a public good, to use their term. The narrow economics focus, as I listened, did not allow for examining what NPR presents that is not presented elsewhere. To me, it is a quality of life issue. Many days, I hear little on regular tv and see little in newspapers that satisfies my intellectual curiosity. (Thus my internet interests.)

But WUNC radio has interviews, news, depth and topics that just don't show up elsewhere. Really! Just spend a few minutes (as I must do from time to time when I ride around with a conservative friend) listening to the dreck that emanates from so much commercial talk radio. The racist, exclusionary, hateful rants are short on facts and long on attitude. I realize that Keith Olberman's presentation style is much like that of some of the radio people I can't abide, even though his content is more to my way of thinking. But I find him hard to take in large doses. He needs about 15 minutes, not the hour MSNBC was giving him till recently. You won't hear anything like him on NPR.

How Click and Clack and the Nightly Business Report (referred above) are "liberal" to any objectionable degree I don't know. Crude and repetitive(C&C) yes, but the business reporting seems to me to be pretty neutral. (Of course, when Blankfein says he is doing "God's work" I would expect most people to gag, atheists included.) But I have not heard specifics in all the accusations above.

Back to the podcast: I heard a mix of tightly theoretical economics talk with a less specific set of references to a more private-industry alternative. That brings up the fact that public radio is largely funded by willing payment from those of us who listen and who think there is a community benefit there worth supporting. I don't think "regular" radio could survive five minutes if the tables were turned. And "regular" radio is using public airwaves at no charge to make private profit.

I don't feel particularly required to stick to the "economics" theme here, because that lets one viewpoint define the field. And I am not convinced, Saint Krugman nearly excepted, of the universal understanding and applicability of the notions of economists. Rather, people listen to radio as part of a listening community. I think you will find more of that among public radio than among Clear Channel or Delilah listeners. We have committment to a public discourse, and I think more respect for alternate viewpoints. I can understand the difficulty of listening to what one perceives as the opposition. Dianne Rheem's right-wing think tank guests just fry my grits sometimes, but I still listen. I don't see room for that on the shows from Bortz and Savage. Callers who disagree are shortly dispensed with.

It was worth the listen, and I hope some of you find this to have been worth the read.

[Angelo]

Click and Clack (and on PBS, Sesame Street) as well as other popular public broadcasting, won't go off the air. First off, NPR/PBS, if they are truly as important as their supporters say, will still be around with or without my taxes floating them. Even if NPR/PBS can't make it without government funding, other outlets will pick up their most popular programming. Can't stand commercials? Subscribe to satellite or something, but don't ask me to pay for your entertainment.