A follow up to my "Stinging the good guys" of yesterday about the latest right-wing sting operation by the folks that killed ACORN, this time trying to kill NPR.
Already reeling from the awkward firing of Juan Williams last year, now a senior fund-raiser has been caught on tape trashing the Tea Party and saying that NPR would be better off, in the long run, without government funding. NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller was asked to resign and did, meaning she was fired.
All this bad publicity will only add fuel to the fire of conservatives in congress who want to eliminate funding for NPR.
Some argue that it would be a good thing for NPR not to accept federal funds. Here's the argument:
(1) They can survive without it. Most of their revenue comes from local stations buying programs from NPR, from listener support, charitable foundations, and corporations. Private contributions would likely increase to help make up the difference.
(2) The PBS news network (including NPR) is the most respected news on TV, according to a recent Public Policy Polling. PBS received a 50 trust/30 distrust rating. The next best was NBC at 40/43; Fox News was 42 trust/46 distrust. It should be able to survive -- maybe even thrive -- on its own. A side note from the poll: Democrats tend to trust everyone except Fox News; Republican trust nobody but Fox.
(3) The most persuasive argument to me is this: remove their dependence on government funding and you get rid of the necessity to walk the tightrope, lest some congressman use a misstatement against you in the next appropriations bill. It will free PBS and NPR up to concentrate on excellent journalism. They succeed at this, better than anyone else, even with this scrutiny. Remove it -- and life will be much easier and reporting less constrained.
My annual contribution is modest, but I would increase it significantly if they lose federal money.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment