NPR accuses Republican lawmaker of trying to control public radio stations

[cal04]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/137245-npr-accuses-republican-of-trying-to-control-public-radio-stations

NPR pushed back on Tuesday against a Republican lawmaker who is trying to cut off federal funding for public broadcasting, accusing him of trying to interfere with how the nation's local public radio stations report the news.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) re-introduced two bills last week that would cut off federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Lamborn, who introduced the same bills in the last Congress, called NPR's programming "a luxury we cannot afford to subsidize."


"Congressman Lamborn’s legislation is an intrusion into the programming decision-making of America’s public radio stations," said NPR in an e-mailed response. "His legislation will disrupt and weaken the free and universal public media system that serves 170 million Americans each month."

(snip)
"It seems ironic that Congressman Lamborn who seeks to withdraw federal support for public radio wants federal legislators in turn to assert control over how local public radio stations can make use of programming funds," NPR added.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I see...if it's federally funded, they either want it to be Public FOX news, or it's dead

in the water.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I think THAT ship has sailed....the repukes already have influenced Public Broadcasting

to a very great extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR

Allegations of ideological bias
Allegations of liberal bias

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that Morning Edition leans left. At the time Morning Edition had a bias comparable to the The Washington Post and the CBS Morning Show, and was slightly more liberal than Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.<25> It found Morning Edition to be more liberal than the average U.S. Republican of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group,<26> disputes the claim of a liberal bias.<27>
Allegations of conservative bias

A December 2005 column run by NPR ombudsman and former Vice President Jeffrey Dvorkin denied allegations by some listeners that NPR relies heavily on conservative think-tanks.<28> In his column, Dvorkin listed the number of times NPR had cited experts from conservative and liberal think tanks in the previous year as evidence. The totals were 239 for conservative think tanks, and 141 for liberal ones. He noted that while the number of times liberal think tanks were cited was less, in addition to think tanks the liberal point of view is commonly provided by academics.

In 2003, some critics accused NPR of being supportive of the invasion of Iraq.<29><30>
Allegations of bias against Israel

NPR has been criticised for perceived bias in its coverage of Israel.<31><32><33><34> The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel American media monitoring organization based in Boston, has been particularly critical of NPR. CAMERA director Andrea Levin has stated, "We consider NPR to be the most seriously biased mainstream media outlet," a statement that The Boston Globe describes as having "clearly gotten under her target's skin."<34> NPR's then-Ombudsman, Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, said in a 2002 interview that CAMERA used selective citations and subjective definitions of what it considers pro-Palestinian bias in formulating its findings, and that he felt CAMERA's campaign was "a kind of McCarthyism, frankly, that bashes us and causes people to question our commitment to doing this story fairly. And it exacerbates the legitimate anxieties of many in the Jewish community about the survival of Israel."<35>
Allegations of elitism and the status quo

A 2004 FAIR study concluded that "NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public."<36>

Noam Chomsky has criticized NPR as being biased toward ideological power and the status quo. He alleges that the parameters of debate on a given topic are very consciously curtailed. He says that since the network maintains studios in ideological centers of opinion such as Washington, the network feels the necessity to carefully consider what kinds of dissenting opinion are acceptable. Thus, political pragmatism, perhaps induced by fear of offending public officials who control some of the NPR's funding (via CPB), often determines what views are suitable for broadcast, meaning that opinions critical of the structures of national-interest-based foreign policy, capitalism, and government bureaucracies (entailed by so-called "radical" or "activist" politics) usually do not make it to air.<37>
Defenders' rebuttals

Supporters contend that NPR does its job well. A study conducted in 2003 by the polling firm Knowledge Networks and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets. In one study, NPR and PBS audiences had a more accurate understanding of the events in Iraq versus all audiences for cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media.<38><39>

[justiceischeap]

3. This not only effects NPR but PBS too... (eom)

[gatorboy]

4. Yes, God forbid people find out there is a positive news outlet outside the normal punditry.

[Deep13]

5. "a luxury we cannot afford to subsidize."

Only if imformed citizens are a luxury.

[Lindsay]

7. Informed citizens are not a luxury, they're

something the right wing wishes to avoid at all costs.

[gatorboy]

8. To Republicans, they are.

In fact to Republicans, informed citizens are a menace.

[DirkGently]

6. They're quite blatantly out to destroy every source of objective information.