Should NPR be funded by taxpapers?

Personally, I don't understand why they should be. There are so many news sources, and if the private companies didn't have to compete a government subsidized news outlet, there would be even more private sources. Anyway, here is a surprisingly useful discussion on the issue.

Is the writing on the wall for taxpayer funds going to government radio?

Will government radio explain what service that it provides to inform voters that isn't already provide elsewhere? There is a big issue of whether the government should even be involved in providing the news. From the WSJ:

House Republicans voted unanimously on Thursday to deny federal funds for the radio broadcaster. The measure, however, was defeated, 239-171 as Democrats opposed it.

But when Republicans reclaim the majority next year, NPR won’t have such support. . . .

“News organizations are free to do, say and operate on their own terms, but that doesn’t mean that taxpayers should be forced to fund them,” Mr. Cantor said in a release after the vote. “If the Democrat Majority wants to continue to ignore the will of the people that’s their prerogative, but the new Republican Majority will not follow suit next year.”

In a statement, NPR said, “In an increasingly fractious media environment, public radio’s value in fostering an informed society has never been more critical… It is imperative for federal funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy remains available to all Americans and thrives well into the future.” . . .

Gov. Haley Barbour supports cutting funds for public broadcasting

Politico has the story here:

Current.org reports that Barbour’s $5.5 billion 2012 spending proposal for Mississippi slashes MPB’s state aid by $1.5 million to $6 million. The proposal also came with a letter that called for a total end to spending in the long run.

"Mississippi taxpayers should not continue subsidizing a television and radio network, so I recommend a sharp reduction in the appropriation for Mississippi Public Broadcasting," he writes. "This decrease should begin a draw down in funding for MPB that will ultimately result in its operating entirely on private donations or revenues, except for educational programming used by and prepared by [the Mississippi Department of Education.]"

NPR all upset about possible spending cut

The Debt Commission "cuts" are often pretend cuts. For example, does anyone take seriously the notion that 40 years from now the government will increase the retirement age by one year? But there seems to be one small cut that they are proposing that makes sense: the elimination of the $500 million currently going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR claimed just a couple weeks ago that it gets virtually none of its money from the Federal government:

"We do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just 1 to 3 percent of our total budget," she's said.

NPR apologist Norah O'Donnell also tossed out the 1 percent to 3 percent range, and AP reporter Brett Zongker reported, "Federal grants provide less than 2 percent – or $3.3 million – of NPR's $166 million annual budget." . . .

For another reference at MSNBC see here.

Federal grants provide less than 2 percent — or $3.3 million — of NPR's $166 million annual budget. It is funded primarily by its affiliates, corporate sponsors and major donors. . . .

So what does one make of this response to the debt commission proposal today from NPR:

The National Commission’s proposal to eliminate federal funding for public media would have a profound and detrimental impact on all Americans. Public radio is the last remaining source of independent, noncommercial and thought-provoking broadcast media in the country — and in some small towns and communities, is the only remaining source of free, accessible local, national and international news and information, music and cultural programming. Public radio stations are located in nearly every major city and small town delivering vital and highly trusted news and information to 37 million Americans each week — reaching more citizens than the circulation of the top 120 national newspapers combined.
In a time of media decline, especially in local, international and investigative reporting, public radio’s role in fostering an informed society has never been as critical as it is today. The public radio audience is one of the few in media that has consistently grown — doubling in the past decade alone.
Federal funding has been a central component of public radio stations’ ability to serve audiences across the country. It’s imperative for funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy survives and thrives well into the future. . . .

Why is the government giving any money to NPR?

There are so many options for alternative formats, why is the government giving money to NPR or Public TV? But there is another reason for defunding, and that is getting government money biases those who receive the money. If your income depends on the government, do you think that it might impact how you stand on cutting taxes? The head of NPR though is starting the campaign to make sure that they keep getting government money.

Speaking at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington Sunday on the “Future of Journalism,” National Public Radio President and CEO Vivian Schiller said she takes calls for defunding NPR “very seriously,” while stressing how important government funding is for public broadcasting, especially for NPR’s member stations. She also recognized there’s a possibility that, with the new GOP majority in the House, those calls for defunding might be renewed.

“If defunding to public broadcasting were to occur, it would be devastating to public broadcasting. That’s a fact,” Schiller said. . . .

Should a donor to NPR be telling them what the reporters he pays for should be investigating?

First there is the question of whether it is even proper for NPR to take a donation from someone as left wing as Soros. Soros, who funds organizations such as Media Matters, has an obvious agenda. The fact that he is telling NPR what general topics the reporters he is paying for will investigate is also troubling. My question is what states these investigative reporters will be located. Will they be spread around randomly? Will each state get one? Will they primarily be in Republican states?

billionaire liberal icon George Soros has donated $1.8 million to hire 100 new reporters for 50 of its member stations.

The money will go to launch a project called Impact of Government, which Soros' Open Society Foundation says will "bring greater transparency and accountability to the workings of state capitals across the country."

The group, which describes its mission as building "tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens," calls it a response to the decline in news coverage of state legislatures. . . .

Juan Williams' firing by NPR is very disappointing

Juan Williams' firing by NPR is very disappointing. But NPR has been looking for an excuse to fire both Juan Williams and Mara Liasson for some time. Indeed, they came close to forcing Mara Liasson out recently. As to William's statement, the fact a certain group of people are more likely than another to hijack a plane seems beyond debate. Williams did not say that Muslims who were dressed a certain way would hijack the plane, just that the odds were higher. If NPR disagreed, it would be interesting to hear their explanation.

Possibly, NPR doesn't appreciate how much free advertising they get every time Williams and Liasson appear on Fox News. They might also simply dislike Fox News so much that they can't stand the connection. The only really rational reason that I can think of is that they felt that Fox News' audience was constantly being reminded how liberal NPR is.

Some very questionable comments by others at NPR that did not result in their removal.

Some comments by Juan Williams and others:

Juan Williams: NPR Fired Me For Making "Bigoted Statement"

"The firing of Juan was a total mistake and it sends the wrong message," "View" host Whoopi Goldberg said.

"He's [Juan] better off out of there than being in that snake pit," Bill O'Reilly said.

"I think it is an act of total censorship. I think that the U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money. I think the whole idea that if you honestly say how you feel about Islam and about -- what he said was very balanced. People should really what he actually said. The idea that that's the excuse for National Public Radio to censor Juan Williams, I think is an outrage and to every listener to NPR should be enraged that there's this kind of bias against an American," Gingrich said.

UPDATE: "NPR CEO walks back 'psychiatrist' comment"

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller told an audience in Atlanta today that Juan Williams's feelings about Muslims should have been kept between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist,” NPR reported.

But she later walked back those comments, issuing a statement saying: “I spoke hastily, and I apologize to Juan for my thoughtless remark.”

So will Ms. Schiller be fired?

Finally, more from Juan Williams:

I say an ideological battle because my comments on "The O’Reilly Factor" are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.

Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on "The Factor." When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge. . . .

And he has this on Friday:

“NPR, and especially this last group of managers, became vindictive [and,] as you can see, personal in terms of their antagonism toward me,” he said. . . .

NPR's Ombudsman has this post here. She writes: "Ultimately, however, it seems management felt he had become more of a liability than an asset. Unfortunately, I agree." But there is not much of an explanation for why she agrees. She also doesn't discuss his entire presentation and takes the short quote out of context.