Julian Sanchez | May 26, 2005
Surveying the attempts to bring "balance" to public broacasting, Jesse Walker concludes that C is for Cronyism—and it's good enough for me.
On a related note, check out NPR's unintentionally hilarious coverage of the kerfuffle, which a more honest copywriter would've headlined: "Troglodyte claims of NPR bias utterly false, NPR finds."
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|5.26.05 @ 2:34PM|#
A political party with hegemony deciding not to make a state-run media outlet independent of the state?
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Next somebody will tell me that a party with hegemony enjoys spending lots of money on its pet projects!
|5.26.05 @ 2:35PM|#
And, lest anybody misunderstand me, I whole-heartedly support cutting PBS loose. The PBS subsidy is miniscule in the grand scheme of the bloated federal budget, but the notion of state-run media just rubs me the wrong way.
|5.26.05 @ 3:16PM|#
"The PBS subsidy is miniscule in the grand scheme of the bloated federal budget, but the notion of state-run media just rubs me the wrong way."
I couldn't have said it better myself!
|5.26.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Independent media is highly over-rated.
|5.26.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Is bringing balance to public broadcasting like bringing balance to The Force. Cuz it worked out so well for The Jedi.
|5.26.05 @ 4:05PM|#
Sure, NPR has a bias. That bias is less flagrant than in most media outlets, and the coverage is more in depth and interesting.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that the government should fund media. I am suggesting that bashing NPR on the basis of its news programing is a bit silly.
|5.26.05 @ 4:13PM|#
If they would just get off the government teat, I wouldn't care what their bias is or isn't. But if they are going to take money from us, they need to be held under the TIGHTEST scrutiny for bias.
|5.26.05 @ 4:27PM|#
i counted, what, 5 mentions of "fair and balanced" in that NPR news story.
don't they think FOX might decide to sue them over that?
oh, and from the story:
PBS gets 11% of it's money from the Federal Gov't.
NPR gets only 1% of it's money from the Federal Gov't.
seems pretty obvious why the head of CPB is going after PBS, but not after NPR...
Jesse Walker|5.26.05 @ 4:32PM|#
Most NPR affiliate stations get subsidies from the CPB -- and a lot of that is then paid to the national network as dues. So the 1% figure is misleading.
But with all that Kroc money, I don't think there's any question that the organization could survive without Washington's help. PBS is more dependent, and therefore more vulnerable.
|5.26.05 @ 5:16PM|#
I think NPR's basic news is about as good as you can find - Morning Edition, All Things Considered, etc., with minor bias to the left. Talk of the Nation is great, too.
I think the bias is worse when you start looking at the other shows - compare the questions & tone that confront liberals versus conservatives on shows like "Here & Now" or "Fresh Air" & it's so striking that claims of objectivity from the hosts are pretty comical. Diane Rehm would fit that category, also, but more just because she's a little flighty & easily taken in by warm & fuzzy issues.
To me, it's similar to The Daily Show on Comedy Central. A show that's very entertaining & sometimes even interesting, but that is hemmed in by an obvious & disappointing one-sided hostility that it frequently doesn't seem to be aware of.
M1EK|5.26.05 @ 5:20PM|#
"but that is hemmed in by an obvious & disappointing one-sided hostility that it frequently doesn't seem to be aware of."
The comedy, it has a liberal bias.
|5.26.05 @ 7:19PM|#
I may be naive, but I don't consider PBS or NPR state-run media, any more than I consider other businesses that get governmet seed money--defense, technology, pharmaceutical companies, etc.--to be state run. The government can be a useful player in seeding smaller business ventures that will later go on to spur greater commercial growth. The amount paid to public broadcasting is minuscule, but it does prime the pump, so to speak, and fund ventures that otherwise might not have a commercial outlet. I think it gives the public something of value over the supposedly public airwaves.
|5.26.05 @ 11:04PM|#
That flaky hippy you speak of happens to be my great great.. grandpappy. Plus I like NPR, until it sickens me, then I listen to Stearn until commercials, then back again.
|5.27.05 @ 6:04AM|#
I think I'm still half asleep from listening to Bob Edwards all those years. God only knows why I didn't fall asleep at the wheel and kill somebody back then.
|5.27.05 @ 8:20AM|#
Serafina,
Mass media needs "seed money" from the government about as much as. . . as. . . Coca-Cola needs subsidies. (ok bad example)
|5.27.05 @ 8:36AM|#
I find the idea that Bush is/could control NPR downright laughable. Jesse Walker notes that the CPB charter requires a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." Yes, what NPR reports on is typically done with a strain for objectivity---but, the slight bias comes from what they decide to report, and what they leave out---not to mention, the strength (lack thereof) of the sources/guests/interviewees on the "other" side.
I listen to NPR news every day, and it really is great news for the most part, but none of this justifies federal funding. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what DOES justify it. Anyone know what the original reasoning behind the creation of CPB was?
On a side note, my friends and I have a theory about NPR: you have to have a weird-sounding name to be on there. Bob Edwards was an anomaly, which is why he was demoted. Michelle Norris was a little too vanilla, so they made her change to MEEEchelle.
|5.27.05 @ 8:39AM|#
I was just thinking how irritating the left-wing bias is on these stations are, but then thought the alternative would be much more scary..
Instead of:
Drone..drone..drone..discrimination..drone.drone..drone..oppression..economic disparity..(whine)..bias...drone..drone..victims...drone..
It would be:
Drone..drone..Jews..drone.drone...blacks...drone..drone.....drone..fatherland..drone..drone..(grunt)...traitors..drone..praise Jesus..
|5.27.05 @ 6:24PM|#
... I don't consider PBS or NPR state-run media... - Serafina
The local outlets are mostly licensed to state entities, such as state universities. That makes them state media in my book. Where I live, the Big State U runs a statewide network of them, and the Local State U has one outside the network. Even the public school district has a radio station, though they are taking the sensible step of letting a private non-profit run it. The government boys are clutching tight to those scarce FM frequencies, though.
My favorite non-commercial station is owned and operated by our local private engineering college, and it rocks, without any damn NPR, either.
Kevin