…the government would not fund a major media outlet, taking taxpayer dollars to disseminate viewpoints that are anathema to many taxpayers. As Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” NPR/PBS have been an abomination for American values since their inception.
Just in case you were wondering what I thought about the Juan Williams situation. And I actually like a lot of NPR programming. But I suspect that the programming that I like would survive just fine absent federal dollars. And if not, I’d survive just fine without it.
And Juan Williams apparently agrees. You know the old saying that a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged? Well, Juan just got mugged.
[Update in the afternoon]
A proposal for a “Juan Williams Law.”
This legislation would outlaw all government funding for any news organization, whether private or non-governmental in nature. This restriction would include not only National Public Radio but all domestic news outlets, whatever their ideology or bias, or even if they claim to have none. (I am not talking here, of course, of international operations such as Voice of America, which have the legitimate task of representing American interests abroad.)
The legislation would further outlaw any future stimulus funding or bailouts for news organizations, again irrespective of ideology.
It’s easy to understand that government financing of the news is at best unseemly and at worst totalitarian. The possibilities for corruption are myriad. I am not one to dwell on what the Founders intended, but I am reasonably certain they didn’t want a Fourth Estate that was bought and paid for by the government, even in part.
I would go further and argue that it’s a violation of the establishment clause, given the degree (and it’s a large one) to which “progressivism” is a religion. Juan was duly punished for his heresy.
Of course NPR doesn’t want to compete. They have found a nice safe (conservative free) place to play in, and they won’t give that up to have to listen to market forces. Instead, they wish to remain a small, tax payer supported outlet that only has to listen to the lightened few who run it. It’s a select group broadcasting for a select group, supported by the rest of us. Nice work if you can get it.
How much federal tax dollar funding does NPR receive?
How much federal tax dollar funding does NPR receive?
What does it matter? If it’s greater than zero, it’s too much.
It’s a big enough amount that its supporters will howl like mad if you try to cut it. Just watch and see.
So would the “Fairness Doctrine” apply to NPR?
/sarc
Floating around the tubes this week is the estimate that 2 percent of NPR’s funding comes from the Feds, by way of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a figure which seems plausible enough.
Individual stations, however, dip more deeply into the trough. The NPR affiliate nearest to me claims they get just under 13 percent of their funding from CPB.
That’s why Air America failed. They weren’t competing with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, but with National White People’s Radio* and it’s gov’t sponsorship.
And I too don’t care how much. 2% is 2% too much. Let Soros make up the difference. Or is it only okay for the rich to subsidize things if it first gets laundered through confiscatory taxation and all the bureaucrats get to take their cut?
(Also note that when cuts are threatened, NWPR’s fans simultaneously say it’s not much (2%), and throw a tantrum like two-year-old being taken out of the toy store. So which is it? Settle on one Party line already.)
* As in “Stuff White People Like”
Action PBS off, someone will buy Big Bird. Problem solved.
How much federal tax dollar funding does NPR receive?
According to Doug Lamborn (R – Colorado) about 420 million per year.
[[[In A Free Society
…the government would not fund a major media outlet, taking taxpayer dollars to disseminate viewpoints that are anathema to many taxpayers.]]]
So now the United Kingdom and Canada are being added to the list of nations that are not free societies?
Well, it’s stipulating that the US isn’t one Thomas.
Al,
So are there any free societies by that yardstick?
Thomas, tyranny is tyranny even in small digestible amounts. Forcing someone to give you their property is tyranny. Providing services to those that agree to pay for them is not. This is not a difficult concept.
I can see the utility of a public radio network, so long as said network is used for purposes proper to government (i.e. defense, public information, cultural preservation, etc.). In other words, I’d support a federal radio network that transmitted nothing but nutrition information, weather reports, instructions on filling out tax returns, step-by-step guides to how to dig a proper fallout shelter — that sort of thing. The gaps could be filled in with music — the works of American composers (e.g. Charles Ives) and readings of American poetry. I’d be willing to pay my share of the $450M for a network like that.
But NPR as currently construed? Forget it. They might as well rename it Urban Democrat Radio, because that’s exactly what it is. Congress should sell off NPR and PBS, and use the CPB for the purposes I outline above.
A humorous take on the Williams story
What I wonder is how many folks would be defending Juan Williams if he was white and said he got nervous whenever he saw young black men waiting at a bus stop he was at. I am sure the calls to fire him would be universal.
Stereotyping is stereotyping and is something we need to leave in the past. NPR did the right thing and its sad that Fox News rewarded him with a huge contract. Its says a lot more about the values of Fox News, the Citizen Kane network.
Stereotypes and prejudice are a mind using abstractions. It’s natural and yes, it often leads to trouble. The only way to leave it in the past is to let the zombies eat your brain. Brains use abstraction.
No, Thomas, there wouldn’t be universal calls to fire if he were white and said that he got nervous seeing young black men at the bus station. I, for one, wouldn’t, but I would be astounded at his suicidal candor.
According to NPR, in FY08 they got 5.8% of their budget from state and federal governments.
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
I can’t find the link right now but the UK is cutting some or all of its funding to the BBC.
What I wonder is how many folks would be defending Juan Williams if he was white and said he got nervous whenever he saw young black men waiting at a bus stop he was at. I am sure the calls to fire him would be universal.
Sounds like a Jesse Jackson quote. I don’t recall a clamor to fire him in the wake of that. Because he’s black?
I think it is important for a government to have a public broadcasting medium. The government must be able to transmit its own views, inform citizens, and promote the cultural values of the country. It is better to have a specific state channel for this than to recruit private channels into doing do the job. Which is what would inevitably happen if there was no state channel.
What is sad is when you need to wait for a private non-profit to do the citizen informing job that, say, C-SPAN provides. It seems governments prefer to spew propaganda rather than inform citizens and engage citizens with state procedures.
Ever listen to or read Voice of America? I wonder if commenters here would detect bias? No, wait, of course they would — how could news be truly unbiased? So, why is VOA off-limits? Also, I enjoy VOA sitting at home in the USA — this must be stopped!
As Roger Simon said, VOA is a different animal, being part of our foreign policy and outreach to other nations.
“I think it is important for a government to have a public broadcasting medium. The government must be able to transmit its own views…”
You’re kidding, right? If not, too bad you missed out on the USSR. You could work for PRAVDA.
@Bill:
I defend there should be a state public broadcasting medium. Not that it should be the only medium. I think there should also be private broadcasting mediums, and free speech. This was certainly not the case in the USSR.
If it’s a mistake to cut funding it’s a mistake worth making.
Have a state medium and pretty soon, that’s all there will be.
Here in Canada we (non-elites) call our government broadcasting (the CBC) the Communist Broadcasting Corporation. Very left-wing urban bias, and what’s really annoying is that the DJ’s that play music seem to think it’s their job to talk ad nauseum.
A billion dollars a year and they compete with private broadcasters.
I wonder why the GOP didn’t defund CPB when they had control of the House, Senate and White House? Maybe it’s worth less to them dead than alive — as a way to periodically get their base worked up about the liberal media bias bogeyman.
The “Juan Williams” law above would outlaw student publications at state universities and public high schools. No doubt they are incompatible with a free society.
As for Juan Williams, how does a multi-million-dollar pundit not notice the common thread that unites the 9/11 attackers, the shoe bomber and the panty bomber: that none of them boarded a plane dressed in stereotypically Muslim attire? His reaction to headscarfs is both bigoted and (as is often the case with prejudice) disfunctional.
So Jim, you’d rather he lied to you about how he felt regardless of rationality? Why do you not get that you can disagree with Juan and still support his honesty?
The thing that’s incompatible with a free society is public money used for political propaganda. It’s obscene, especially because of the amount of money they get using a shell game to hide it.
What I wonder is how many folks would be defending Juan Williams if he was white and said he got nervous whenever he saw young black men waiting at a bus stop he was at. I am sure the calls to fire him would be universal.
Actually, Jesse Jackson and Walter Williams have both said essentially that. But both of them are black.
I don’t have the exact quotes handy, but Jackson said something like “When I’m walking down the street and hear footsteps behind me, when I turn around I’m relieved to see that it’s a white person.”
Williams said (remarking on a study that said taxicab drivers are less likely to stop to pick up black men), “I’m a large black man, and I don’t blame the cab driver for not stopping for me. I blame other large black men who are criminals, and who cause the cab driver to be afraid to pick me up.”
If the establishment clause implies a wall of seperation between church and state, then the rest of the 1st amendment would imply a wall of seperation between state and ideology.
A government funded news-outlet competes with the free press, so it would act as a limiter on the free press. A government funded public forum would compete with other public measures of free petition. A government-sponsored radio frequency allocation to a point of view competes with a non-government point of view that could be on that allocation.
It’s a silly argument, but as valid as any the left usually throws out. But then again, the left’s entire open political philosophy regards the government as the protector of some against others. The first amendment should protect the right of the oppressed to speak out against their oppressors, who must be silenced by the great benevolent leveler of men.
Can we admit that the left has rejected the foundational political legitimacy of our constitutional system? And so if NPR is defunded, does that mean the right has begun to return the favor?
That, as with everything this political era, is the real story.
“…the liberal media bias bogeyman.”
Is alive and well. If they aren’t far enough to the left for you, that says more about you than it does about the media.
The government must be able to transmit its own views, inform citizens, and promote the cultural values of the country.
Um… wow… Here I thought the document constituting the US government begins with “We the People”. I would think the views of the government ought to be the views of the people, and if the people want to promote their own cultural values, then they could do so without a government. One of the things that made the Revolutionary War possible, to the extent people could be organized to overthrow their government, was the lowered cost of printing presses that gave individuals, rather than governments, the power to share their views. The be more clear, it gave people equal to superior power to share their views over the government. This was such a critical concept to the founding fathers they when they appended a “Bill of Rights” to that document that began with “We the People”; they added protection for the “press”. Hell, the entire first amendment runs contrary to your statement, Godzilla.
Government was provided a means to inform citizens of its actions. It’s called the United States Post Office. The US Government can freely send posts of the actions they have taken. To the extent current technology provides, I’m ok with C-SPAN. However, C-SPAN is a public controlled institution. It isn’t owned by the government. Indeed, it does exactly what NPR should be doing, for that matter what NPR originally did do. If NPR got rid of its propaganda programing and stuck with simply airing the actions of the government the way C-SPAN does, then I think it would be a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer’s dollars. As it is, C-SPAN proves that the freemarket has an interest in what government does and following government actions. Thus, NPR and CPB are unnecessary.
“It’s called the United States Post Office.”
Auction that off too. Any remaining corner cases can be either stipulated as part of the duties of the new company, or passed as a regulation if need be.
So Jim, you’d rather he lied to you about how he felt regardless of rationality?
No — where do you get that idea?
I’d rather he realize how stupid his feelings are.
“What I wonder is how many folks would be defending Juan Williams if he was white and said he got nervous whenever he saw young black men waiting at a bus stop he was at.”
Maybe not if young black men had been the ones who had flown airliners into New York skyscrapers on 09/11/01. But they weren’t, so your straw-man is meaningless.
I’d rather he realize how stupid his feelings are.
How ironic, we’ve all been waiting for you to realize how stupid your postings here are.
Cecil,
[[[Maybe not if young black men had been the ones who had flown airliners into New York skyscrapers on 09/11/01. But they weren’t, so your straw-man is meaningless.]]]
The terrorists were not dressed as Muslims, they were dressed like normal western travelers, so you just showed how little you know about 9/11. It also shows why his fear is all the more irrational and simply reflects racial stereotyping.
so you just showed how little you know about 9/11
Where did I say that the 9/11 terrorists were dressed in muslim garb?
Nowhere.
So you just showed how poor your reading comprehension is.
It also shows why his fear is all the more irrational and simply reflects racial stereotyping.
– Written by a person that claims to be a conservative Republican but declared his vote for Harry Reid while complaining about women Republican candidates in both NV and DE or, in the case of Sarah Palin, not even on the ballot.
“I’d rather he realize how stupid his feelings are.”
Ah, the “stupid” canard. The liberal’s base stance: if you disagree with them on anything, you must be “stupid.” God forbid you ever look “stupid” to a liberal. Don’t you know they are the last arbiters of what is and is not “intelligent”?
At the risk of being labeled “stupid” (the FEAR, it keeps me up at night!) here is what I think of what Juan Williams said: when he sees foreigners all dressed in their garb that says “we are not like YOU,” he feels a normal human fear of the in-your-face Different Guy in a day and age when people are using their way of dress to “express” themselves and that expression isn’t always meant to be nice. ESPECIALLY when it comes to religion, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to the Muslim religion. Muslims who dress in Arab garb do so to differentiate themselves from the infidel. NOT to assimilate. And there’s nothing wrong with that… but it gets peoples’ backs up, or at least alerts them, and it’s meant to. Williams then went on (in the limited time frame that O’Reilly gives his guests) to qualify that as not meaning he either condoned his own feelings nor did he think they should give rise to institutional changes. But there was nothing “stupid” about his feelings; it’s perfectly sensible to be wary of people who belong to the religion of people we are at war with. Personally, I am more worried about the Muslims we can’t see — the ones who don’t flaunt their difference. In many ways the in-your-face different-dressing Muslims are a decoy, whether they are witting or unwitting; while we are worried about them not wanting to fit in, that perfectly nice Mr. Assad who said he was a Maronite Christian from Beirut is actually a jihadist practicing taqqiya while he builds a bomb in his kitchen.
Cecil,
So you are afraid of folks dressed like Muslims because some terrorists from Muslim countries that were not dressed like Muslims were behind 9/11. Gee, that irrational even by Tea Party standards.
Andrea,
[[[Muslims who dress in Arab garb do so to differentiate themselves from the infidel.]]]
or they do so simply because that is how they were used to dressing in the “old country” as is the case with many immigrate groups to America. My grandmother still dressed “Polish” into the 1970’s even through it was many decades (1901) since she immigrated to America. Its what she felt comfortable wearing.
Stop looking for hidden motives where there are none.
Muslims who dress in Arab garb do so to differentiate themselves from the infidel.
Like Williams, you seem awfully sure of your abilities as a mind-reader. The fact is that you don’t know why an individual Muslim may be dressed the way he or she is. He may be trying to express his love for Allah, or he may have a totally secular motive (e.g. I don’t want to start a fight with the traditionalist relatives who will be meeting my flight). It does not necessarily have anything to do with you.
it’s perfectly sensible to be wary of people who belong to the religion of people we are at war with.
No, it isn’t, because that wariness does you no good. No American has ever improved his day, much less saved his life, by being nervous about Muslims who boarded his plane dressed in Arab garb. It might be instinctual, and common, but it isn’t sensible.
And that wariness can very easily turn into something that will do you, and your country, much harm. Wariness of Japanese-Americans imprisoned thousands of loyal citizens, and left a permanent stain on our history. Wariness of Muslims pushes them away, straining the ties that are our best defense against extremists.
In many ways the in-your-face different-dressing Muslims are a decoy, whether they are witting or unwitting; while we are worried about them not wanting to fit in that perfectly nice Mr. Assad who said he was a Maronite Christian from Beirut is actually a jihadist practicing taqqiya while he builds a bomb in his kitchen.
So now you’re saying that it’s counter-productive to worry about different-dressing Muslims?
I wouldn’t worry too much about Mr. Assads either; I believe the death toll for U.S. Muslim kitchen bombers is still zero.
No, it isn’t, because that wariness does you no good
How amazingly and cluelessly wrong you are. That “wariness” could mean the difference between a funny story ha ha a panty bomber! and a grotesque tragedy.
Tell me, Jim, is it OK for women to be extra wary when it comes to being approached by strange men late at night? Is that pointless prejudice dangerous to the Republic? You willing to get rid of rape shield laws, or the instant restraining order for domestic violence, or women’s shelters, or “Violence Against Women” laws, or any number of reflections of the “bias” that we have that men are more likely to commit domestic violence than women?
If not…I’d be curious how you rationalize the badness of heightened suspicion of Muslims on airplanes versus the sensibleness of heightened suspicion of men in the context of domestic violence. Go on, square that circle, if you can — if you’re not just a leftist tool, a mouthpiece for whatever random thing comes down the pike that favors your lords and masters in Washington.
So you are afraid of folks dressed like Muslims
When did I say that? I never did. Again your reading comprehension fails you.
Juan Williams said such people caused him anxiety, and I simply defend his right to say it.
because some terrorists from Muslim countries that were not dressed like Muslims were behind 9/11
What does it matter how the 09/11 terrorists were dressed? We know that those who attacked us on 09/11 were muslims and now 9 years later when you see someone dressed in muslim garb you know they are muslims too. The Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor wore Imperial Japanese Navy uniforms, the Japanese Ambassador in Washington DC wore a suit. What people wear or do not wear doesn’t change who they are, but absent other clues muslim clothing does offer a good clue as to who they are. Therefore when one sees someone in muslim garb it is not a far stretch for someone to be reminded of who attacked us on 9/11 and therefore stir certain emotions.
Gee, that irrational even by Tea Party standards.
You are an idiot by ANY standard.
Like Williams, you seem awfully sure of your abilities as a mind-reader.
Yet you find no irony in reading Juan’s mind? He said he felt anxiety. You would disown him for being honest. I guess you really do eat your own.
Shorter Jim: “You’re not NICE.” Yawn.
You know who Jim reminds me of? The sort of people who try to get people at parties to play “The Truth Game” and then wonder why the party breaks up half an hour later in a flurry of drunken tears and recriminations.
Cecil,
You know fear of Muslims was one of things the terrorists hoped would emerge from 9/11 in order to drive a wedge between the Islamic world and the West. It looks like they succeeded both with you and Juan Williams.
Oh noes! The Left hath judged thy feelings “stupid”! Tremble, oh teaklanners, and repent!