Eric Boehlert: Why Conservatives Are Trying to Destroy NPR

[marmar]

Media Matters, via AlterNet:



Why Conservatives Are Trying to Destroy NPR


There's something quite confusing about the current NPR controversy.

What's odd is that James O'Keefe's undercover crew surreptitiously recorded an NPR fundraising executive who has no role in the newsroom expressing what he explicitly labeled to be his personal opinion about Tea Party members and other current events topics. And because of that, partisans are crying foul. But if the right-wing jihad against NPR supposedly centers around the type of journalism it airs (biased!), why would anyone care what someone like Ron Schiller says in private about the Tea Party?

Shouldn't NPR be judged not by a hidden camera trick but by the actual journalism it produces?

I realize the whole claim of liberal media bias revolves around the idea that journalists are privately liberal and therefore can't contain or hide their prejudices when they report the news. So if that's the case, conservatives must be furious with the way NPR has portrayed the Tea Party movement, right? ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/514356/why_conservatives_are_trying_to_destroy_npr/

[fittosurvive]

1. NPR should be judged just like any other media outlet--their performance.

I enjoy some of their programming, but I don't believe that is fair for them to gain an edge over their competition by means of government subsidies.

The programming is good enough to stand on its own.

[fascisthunter]

2. gain an edge? What are you talking about?

[rfranklin]

4. Sounds like anothe post this a.m....

"I really have liked NPR over the years but showing a clear bias when ALL taxpayers are funding them is just not right. I hope they stay afloat and keep providing the many news angles on topics you don't hear on the other stations but I fear this video will give the repugs too much ammunition this time to cut the funding completely."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=594060&mesg_id=594100

[fascisthunter]

5. ain't foolin' many here

but sure thinks it is

[fittosurvive]

6. If I am running a business and my competitor is receiving government subsidies,

they have an advantage over my business.

It's just another example of corporations with powerful lobbyists gaining an unfair edge over companies who may actually offer a better product.

In my mind, that is that fundamentally wrong.

[rfranklin]

10. Public broadcasting was created to counterbalance the commercial media...

It is not a capitalistic, free market entity. There was a huge commercial broadcasting industry in those days which used the public airways without having to pay a red cent for the use of those airways. Things might be a little different now but, you know what, I don't care about being fair to the commercial interests just as they don't care about being fair to anyone else. They will use their massive amounts of cash to subvert the will of the people if it profits them so fairness is a red herring just as it is in most discussions of capitalism and "free markets." Capitalism does not play fair. History has shown that the capitalist does not seek fairness, they seek to destroy their competitors in any way possible. If that means they have to send out thugs to steal the products and property of the competitor they will do it. If they have to kill workers who demand better pay and working conditions they will do it. So please, please don't play the fairness card.

[fascisthunter]

11. how does NPR have an edge on the corporate media... please, do tell

so far you haven't highlighted any advantages.

I think your problem is NPR isn't right wing enough, because they actually have some journalism that has the potential to expose frauds, especially those who repeat the bullshit claim of there being a free market. I think you free market types have enough, and need to back off our commons.

[marmar]

3. Public broadcasting shouldn't be subjected to the whims of the "market"

nt

[fittosurvive]

7. If other businesses are, why shouldn't NPR be?

[marmar]

8. It's a public service, like libraries or parks.

It's part of the commons, not a company whose aim is a profit.

[fittosurvive]

13. That is true, and when NPR was founded in 1970, it filled a void.

Now that they have developed some very good programming and have vast array of sponsors, they no longer appear to need the subsidies.

[KittyWampus]

9. Journalists MAY be liberal privately but its their editors and the owners who call the shots.

And they are conservative.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Two Points...

For those who say NPR can fly on its own without government funding. It probably can, but where will that money come from? Corporations that will then expect editorial control on what is prsesented. Altruism only goes so far when there's an agenda to be pushed. The government money allows those who work at the network (not their political appointee bosses) a certain degree of independence that has led to some of NPR's finer programs.

Second is a power grab by religious broadcasters who covet the more powerful "non-commercial" signals that are controlled by NPR member stations. NPR funding is needed the most in the small and rural areas where there's little corporate or listener support. By cutting off federal and then state funds it will drive many public stations into financial failure and then force them to sell their licenses to hungry religious broadcasters who will get them for pennies on the dollar.

Shutting NPR down eliminates a pesky "librul" voice while paying back the fundies and the religious broadcasters who have long worked in concert with hate radio to spread right wing talking points, lies and misinformation...