What's So Scary About NPR?
Latest GOP attack could wipe out competition for Limbaugh and Beck
It has been decades since NPR—one of the least-slanted and best-reported news sources in the country—depended on federal funding for a significant part of its revenue. The amount that congressional Republicans suddenly decided to ax on an "emergency" basis, around $5 million, represents not only a tiny fragment of the network's own financing, but obviously an even more infinitesimal fraction of the federal deficit. So when Republican leaders claim that they are trying to be fiscally responsible by cutting NPR, at the same time that they insist on funding defense projects that the Pentagon doesn't want, the lie detector jumps off the table.
Those cuts aren't going to touch any of the "elitists" at NPR headquarters in Washington, who may or may not respect the deep wisdom of the tea party. Nor will they injure the big-city NPR journalists in New York, Chicago, Boston or St. Paul who are responsible for so much of the network's superb content. No, those cuts are much more likely to harm the hundreds of rural stations—and their listeners—that rely on the federal subsidy for their network dues.
Still, the Republicans could not resist reviving Richard Nixon's old grudge against public broadcasting as soon as an excuse presented itself—in this case, yet another heavily edited "sting" video from James O'Keefe, producer-provocateur of the infamously faked ACORN videos. Posing as a Muslim philanthropist with $5 million in "secret" cash for NPR, O'Keefe's minions elicited off-color comments about the tea party and NPR's budget from a hired network fund-raiser.
At this point in O'Keefe's career, it might occur to almost anyone, even a right-wing member of Congress, to hold off from rushing to judgment based on his latest emission. Indeed, a member of Congress might want to keep in mind that O'Keefe actually violated the law by invading Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) office to try to tamper with her phone system—in other words, that he committed a crime against one of their colleagues.
NPR Uses More Conservative Sources Than
Liberal Ones
But even that weirdly slimy history didn't provoke
much hesitation among the ranks of the right, many of whom jumped aboard
O'Keefe's latest defamation campaign against NPR executives. He collected a
couple of scalps, as he often does, before the gaping flaws in his journalism
and methodology were exposed—this time, by the conservative watchdogs on Glenn
Beck's website, TheBlaze.com. Dopey as the NPR official's remarks were, the
Blaze investigation showed how O'Keefe had distorted them with deceptive
cutting and framing.
Somehow nobody asked the most obvious question: If
NPR were truly slanted toward the liberal side, why would a phony tape of a
private conversation be needed as proof? Wouldn't the conservatives in Congress
be able to prove bias in a day of hearings with tapes from NPR itself?
They've never even tried—and the reason is they
can't, because NPR works so hard to keep its news straight and its ideologues
balanced. The last time anybody looked hard, about five years ago, the network
was using slightly more conservative than liberal sources.
What makes conservatives in Congress so eager to
deprive their constituents of a straight news source that reports accurately on
what they are doing in Washington? Why should they want to ensure that the
radio coverage in their districts is dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh?
Why are they afraid of NPR?
© 2011
Creators.com
More poor journalism. The writer talks about how the $5 million being cut from the budget is meaningless. Meaningless to NPR, meaningless to the Federal budget. Then in the last paragraph he makes it sound like congress is depriving people from hearing NPR. Which is it? Is NPR depserate for the $5 million or not? I like NPR. I never considered it biased. I've done a few appearances. Only problem is for me is that my clients mostly listed to Rush, Beck and the other right wing entertainers.
If you actually read it, instead of just skimming for an excuse to be a troll, you would have seen this paragraph, the last line of which answers your question: "Those cuts aren't going to touch any of the "elitists" at NPR headquarters in Washington, who may or may not respect the deep wisdom of the tea party. Nor will they injure the big-city NPR journalists in New York, Chicago, Boston or St. Paul who are responsible for so much of the network's superb content. No, those cuts are much more likely to harm the hundreds of rural stations—and their listeners—that rely on the federal subsidy for their network dues. "
Isn't it clear and obvious? The days of "one man one vote" are over. This is the day of "one dollar one vote", just like in corporate boardrooms. It's called capitalism, not democracy. So if a minority is holding the majority of the wealth, then that minority is who is allowed to rule. To those who have money, this is considered "fair".
In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is constitutionally protected free speech. Plus, candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns (Kohl? Abele?).
In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, also on the grounds of free speech in the First Amendment. [this covers 3rd party issue ads, no more limits]
Got the message? Until the liberals, the democrats, the working poor, and the welfare poor can match the amount of MONEY to political lobbying efforts and TV advertising as the wealthy, they will no longer have a say in decisions made by the government.
This is also why working class wages must fall, to ensure that this "servant" group can never match the money required to have a voice. No union dues, no union-funded lobbyists, no union-funded campaign ads.
Oh, and remember the AT&T U-verse decision in Wisconsin, the push for "real competition" to Cable TV, which previously was a Public Service Commission sanctioned monopoly? The little talked about part of that law was to eliminate those "Public Access" channels that nobody watched. That also made sure that only those who could afford to operate a full channel it could get their message into your home... should you choose to watch. Today, you no longer have that choice to make.
Next up... Net Neutrality. When only the big boys web pages can be passed over the internet to your PC screen, then I (and you) will no longer have the option to blog like this on the Shepherd Express page. Eventually, Twitter and Facebook will be priced off of the web, leaving only Amazon.com and others who have something to sell for a profit.