The reactionaries of the far-right are clawing and scratching at their latest red meat: National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams for comments he made about Muslims on Fox News Channel.
It's hard to work up too much sympathy for Williams -- a once esteemed journalist who has repeatedly embarrassed himself in recent years as a soloist in Bill O'Reilly's amen chorus. He was warned multiple times by NPR about providing commentary on Fox News that violated his employment contract. And his reward for the noxious comments that cost him one job was a new $2 million contract from Fox, announced Thursday.
But that hasn't stopped Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart and, of course, O'Reilly from seizing on this contretemps to resuscitate a long-standing right-wing pipe dream: to gut NPR's federal funding altogether. And like clockwork, after a day of increasingly frenzied rhetoric from the usual suspects, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint announced he will introduce legislation on Friday to do just that.
Regardless of what you think about Juan Williams' dismissal -- and NPR's own ombudsman has questioned how it was handled -- using it to take away public radio's funding is like asking for the death penalty in small claims court. It's crazy and it must be stopped.
Public media like NPR play a crucial role in the American information ecosystem that is otherwise drowning in a sensationalism and soundbytes. It's no secret that newspapers -- the primary source of journalism -- are slashing staff and cutting back on original reporting. Many small- and medium-sized communities now have barely any reporters acting as the eyes and ears of the public.
NPR and its public media cousins provide the bulk of in-depth journalism and educational programming on television and radio -- and they are one of the few places currently hiring journalists and expanding their efforts to cover government and big corporations. Democracy is predicated on an informed citizenry, and never has the need for a robust public media system been greater.
But Palin and her red-meat crew aren't interested in democracy or an informed citizenry. They are interested in headlines. They paint NPR as "far-left" and "politically correct, the handmaiden of terror" -- hyperbole designed to discredit media outlets that are not left wing but rather are committed to reporting hard facts and a range of viewpoints rather than blind, partisan ideological rhetoric cloaked as "fair and balanced."
Public media are far from perfect -- and certainly not above criticism for flaws in their coverage, the decisions of their leadership, and lack of diversity. But they've also earned a reputation, according to public opinion surveys, as the most trusted source of news and the most valued public institution except for the military.
Of course, government-hating zealots calling for the end of public media is nothing new here or abroad. But in this country it carries more weight because our public media system is more vulnerable. It was created with structural flaws that leave it exposed to the political whims of Washington. (Many will remember the attempts during the Bush administration to monitor public broadcasting for signs of "liberal advocacy journalism.")
The call for funding cuts is particularly galling because the United States already has one of the lowest levels of federal funding of public media in the developed world -- at just $1.43 per capita. By comparison, Canada spends $22 per capita, and England spends $80. If you're wondering why we don't have anything like the BBC, that's the biggest reason.
If the United States spent the same per capita on public media and journalism subsidies as Sweden and Norway, which rank 1 and 2, we would be spending as much as $30 billion a year on public media instead of $440 million. It's no coincidence that these same countries rank near the top of The Economist magazine's annual Democracy Index, which evaluates nations on the basis of the functioning of government, civic participation and civil liberties. On that list, the United States ranks 18th.
Yet instead of debating how to build a better public media system, we're stuck with a rotting commercial one that would rather help the likes of Palin whip up a frenzy and play up the false divide between left and right. And why not? It worked with the takedown of ACORN, with the smearing of Shirley Sherrod, and with all the other bogus controversies we're told to swallow as news.
This is no longer just about Juan Williams or NPR. It's a moment where we have to decide: Are we going to let our news media further devolve into a morass of shouting heads, hateful rhetoric and political opportunism? Or are we finally going to stand up, reject this attempt to silence one of the only remaining alternatives to the noise machine, and start working on building something even better. It starts by saying no to Sarah Palin and Jim Demint, and saying yes to sanity.
Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVVHJqz-HQ8
What are you going to do about it?
did they come to the defense of Helen Thomas & Rick Sanchez (both journalists who spoke their personal opinion and lost their jobs)
after all, this is about Freedom of Speech & expression, right?
right ...
right ....
right ..... ???
Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint are not working well--there is need for a complete overhaul with both. Sad creatures.
How would your checkbook look if the biggest ticket item you have - your home - was never deducted from your checkbook balance? It might look good but it wouldn't be accurate.
I am not a frequent NPR listener. but I have no problem supporting them because, often, it is the only place that allows a wide array of music, ideas and entertainment broadcast
As someone who has many musician friends in genres that aren't meant for the hip-hop or bubblegum generation (i.e. Jazz, Blues, World Beat, Bluegrass, Classical, etc.), often, public radio is the only venue that gives them airplay and an opportunity to grow as artists.
NPR is no different than PBS. But I LOVE PBS! it is the only place with programming that encourages cerebral thought and great programming for the whole family.
i don't have to agree with everything NPR or PBS does to have a knee-jerk reaction to "de-fund" or have congressional hearings (like some of our political entertainers like Palin, Beck, Gingrich have advocated)
i know many who cannot afford cable that rely on non-commercial PBS (for example) for programming for their families.
According to NPR's site 5.6% comes from Fed, State and Local gov funds.
Another 10.1% comes from CPB which is 99% funded by taxpayers.
Three out of four of the "university funds" come from publicly funded universities...more than 10% of that 13.6 comes from taxpayers pockets.
Donations by Individuals, businesses, and foundations are tax-deductible; thus, they are subsidized by the government. Granted, not every gift is actually reflected on an individual or business tax return, and not all of those that are itemized wind up offsetting high marginal tax rates. Still, it is reasonable to believe that on average, these gifts result in deductions at the 25% tax bracket. Since these three categories add up to roughly 64% of station funds, we can reasonably argue that 16% of that money (64% x 0.25) is subsidized by the tax code.
In the end, then, local NPR and its affiliates derive something like 41% of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.
Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php
Also turns out that when you expose conservatives to more news, they become more misinformed. The opposite with liberals. Page 20 (22 in the Reader) shows this. No wonder the empty and confused responses they post all over the net. LMAO!
The fact of the matter is that the more educated and intelligent you are, the more likely you are liberal. Conservatives hate public radio/tv like NPR/PBS for their supposed liberal slant. Even though they are the most well informed per the above study. Even universities get derided by cons.
Here is yet another study (interesting how cons hate studies...) that shows that liberals and atheists tend toward higher IQs.
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/
The felling I had when I read that they felt that NPR was pro left was that they think that the truth is pro left. They are so used to their lies that they no longer recognize the truth.