Commentary on Demand

                                    Editorials by Request

                                             Fuel your discussions

Weakening the political opponent

(Caveat - I haven't been able to find the actual bill the house passed so I haven't read it.  NPR itself hasn't said much since the bill got out of the house.  Without these two sources I can never be sure of the accuracy of the information.  It is likely once more is learned that I will have to go into the article below and change some details.)

This week the house voted to "cut off funding" for NPR. They tout budget constraints as the reason.  However, they don't seem to have cut anything from the budget.  They just made a rule that said public radio stations just can't go out and buy NPR programming.  The House of Representatives was still funding the public radio stations at essentially the same level. So in if the bill goes into existence these public radio stations could go out and purchase Rush Limbaugh's program but they wouldn't be able to buy "All Things Considered".  

Actually, that is the one statement I would like to fact check - will they be able to pay for Rush's blathering?  I've wondered for awhile now what in the make-up of the public broadcasting stations, the corporation of public broadcasting and NPR has kept them as one of the only broadcast media outlets where the public can go to get meaningful information about not only political issues but science and the arts.  Is there something in the law that kept them from going to the dark side of biased political reporting? MSNBC tried for a long time to at least try to be neutral but over the last few years they have turned to the same "rally for our side - cheat to win" mentality that works for Fox News.  And it worked, MSNBC's rating have improved significantly.  NPR is just about the last media outlet that will present the pros and cons of different approaches in generally a non-judgmental way.  Is NPR generally non-partisan because they receive federal funding?  If federal funding is the reason then I think the country needs to keep funding them.  I'd hate to have to listen to all the dribble on Fox and then all the dribble on MSNBC and try to decipher what is true, cherry picked out of context, honestly mistaken and blatantly false on each station to come up with some semblance of reality.  But if it is possible they will still maintain their journalistic ethics without federal funding then all the better.

However, what this law appears to do which is give the stations the same amount of money but then tell them they can't go out and purchase the programming from NPR seems to be a political move not having anything to do with balancing the federal budget.  What is worse is this almost seems like an admission by Republicans their positions can't stand up when presented in a neutral venue.  This is disturbing to me because on most levels I believe in the main premises of the Republican slogans, especially fiscal ones, more than I believe the fiscal theories of the Democrats.  I believe we should balance budgets, moderate taxes, live within our means, promote small businesses, work hard and rely on a generally capitalist system in order to best promote our living standards.  However, I'm dismayed that when given the opportunity to lead they almost always drive the country to financial ruin. And when they get fiscally responsible people in the Presidency - like President Ford and the first President Bush - they abandon them.  

Post article caveats:  

Although I write in favor of NPR, I am a listening leach.  I haven't ever sent them any money and it is highly unlikely I will ever send them any money.  So if they can still maintain the quality of their programming without so much begging I would enjoy the radio even more.  Of course, I like the fact their commercials are limited and non-bombastic.  I'm not sure how we can prevent them from seeking "the male enhancement" commercials that fuel the rest of talk radio without the begging and / or federal funds.

The other caveat is I respect NPR's ability to be neutral.  As you can tell I don't make that pretext about my articles.  There is a place for opinions and this is one of them.  As MSNBC found out the problem with being neutral is you have to have other people defend you if you are attacked by others without scruples.  The techniques employed by Fox News and that organizations ability to demote the reputation of their competition using a questionable moral compass gives credence to the old saying "nice guys finish last".