 |
| Programming readily available in the existing market? |
Sometimes your opponents in a debate do you a big favor: They clear the brush for you and open a line of creative inquiry that leads you to a beneficial course of action. I think that's what House Republicans are doing for public broadcasting right now, if public broadcasting will just listen.
First, the facts. Today the US House of Representatives will vote on a measure that would prohibit National Public Radio and its affiliates (such as Oregon Public Broadcasting) from using federal money to produce programming or buy programs from other member stations. NPR and the stations could continue to use federal money that comes to them from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cover administrative costs. The House has already voted to cut funding to the Corporation, and the measure today is essentially revenue neutral; it isn't about the federal deficit.
UPDATE: The House voted for the measure, 228-192.
For most of the bigger stations in the network, the measure isn't a big deal financially. They receive money from many sources and simple accounting manipulations can ensure their compliance with the measure. Smaller stations, the ones that receive the bulk of their funding from the federal government, are the ones that will have problems, according to most of the analysis I've read. These happen to be in the states and districts that are the most Republican and whose representatives are most inclined to vote for the measure.
UPDATE 2: Steve Bass, the president of Oregon Public Broadcasting, explains why it IS a big deal, financially:
"The bill debated yesterday had very broad impacts that would have serious implications for OPB. The bill, if enacted, would prohibit stations from acquiring any content from any source whatsoever if federal funds are involved. It's not just about the use of federal funds to purchase programming from NPR.I don't think that is ironic. It's very practical. Basically, those representatives have decided that NPR programs (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Fresh Air) don't help them politically and aren't aligned with them ideologically, so eliminating them makes good sense from where they sit.
That would undercut our new environmental "local journalism center" that CPB has funded and likely have an impact on our regional reporting which is done in cooperation with other public broadcasting stations."
The argument -- well, it's a statement really, not a full argument -- put forward by the sponsor of the measure, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., isn't explicitly ideological. Here's his statement:
"This is an exciting and significant step forward in the ongoing effort to protect taxpayer dollars from supporting programs that are fully capable of standing on their own. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for something that is widely available in the private market. I wish only the best for NPR. Like many Americans, I enjoy much of their programming. I believe that they can survive, even thrive, in the free market without the crutch of government subsidies."But that's just for public consumption, I fear. Here's what Lamborn, whose campaign against public broadcasting is long-standing, said in a letter to his own supporters back in October.
You may have heard about the recent firing of NPR News Analyst Juan Williams and the $1.8 million donation by liberal activist George Soros to hire 100 NPR reporters. These two actions make it clear that public broadcasting is a friend and protector of liberal issues and political correctness, at the expense of free speech and balanced news reporting.
It is time for Congress to prioritize its spending to our nation’s most pressing needs. With the national debt over $13 trillion dollars, the government cannot continue to fund non-essential services that cater to the priorities of the liberal media elite.Now there's the red meat -- the "liberal media elite," "liberal issues" and, gasp, "political correctness." Oh, and "balanced news reporting," but more on that later.
