Below is my column in The Hill on the growing controversy over NPR and the government subsidy of its programming. There is not much serious debate over the political bias of the company, but NPR has a right to slant its coverage. The question is why this company should be given a federal subsidy over its competitors.
Here is the column:
It has been a rough week for the National Public Radio (NPR) after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at the media outlet.
Although NPR responded by denying the allegations, the controversy has rekindled the debate over the danger of the government selectively funding media outlets. That is a debate that does not simply turn on the question of bias, but more fundamentally on why the public should support this particular media company to the exclusion of others.
The Biden administration and Congress continue to struggle with a massive budget deficit and growing national debt, which stands at $34 trillion and is approximately 99 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
Despite the need to make tough cuts in core public programs, the public subsidy for NPR has been protected as sacrosanct for decades.
NPR insists that only roughly 1 percent of its budget comes from the government. But that is misleading due to a federal law that distributes funds through local stations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been set aside for CPB in fiscal year 2026, a sizable increase from 2025.
In the meantime, NPR’s audience has been declining. Indeed, that trend has been most pronounced since 2017 — the period when Berliner said the company began to openly pursue a political narrative and agenda to counter Donald Trump. The company has reported falling advertising revenue and, like many outlets, has made deep staff cuts to deal with budget shortfalls.
For the record, despite the growing political bias shown by NPR news programs, I still view it to be unmatched in its quality and some of its programming. But the budget fight again raises a longstanding constitutional concern over subsidies for media by the federal government. It is not unconstitutional per se, but it continues to be an anomaly in a system that tries to separate government from the press.
The U.S. has never had a true “wall of separation” for media like the one Thomas Jefferson once referenced between church and state. Indeed, in 1791, Madison declared that Congress had an obligation to improve the “circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people” and sponsored the Post Office Act of 1791, which offered newspapers cut-rate prices for reaching subscribers. For many years, newspapers would account for more than 95 percent of the weight of mail transported by the post office. It was a direct subsidy of the media, and it resulted in an explosion in the number of newspapers in the country.
Still, that subsidy benefited all newspapers regardless of their content or ownership. For decades, Congress has paid billions to the CPB and Voice of America. There is a valid debate over whether Voice of America is an outmoded Cold War-era federal program, but at least VOA is an actual federal program that explicitly carries programming for the government.
CPB and NPR are different. In a competitive media market, the government has elected to subsidize a selective media outlet. Moreover, this is not the media organization that many citizens would choose. While tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR and its allies still expect citizens to subsidize its work. That includes roughly half of the country with viewpoints now effectively banished from its airwaves.
NPR is precisely the type of press outlet that the framers sought to protect through the First Amendment. It is also the very sort of thing that should not be funded as part of a de facto state media.
While local PBS stations are supported “by listeners like you,” NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. If NPR is truly relying on federal funds for only 1 percent of its budget, why not make a clean break from the public dole? NPR would then have to compete with every other radio and media outlet on equal terms. And it would likely do well in such a competition, given its loyal base and excellent programming.
However, the funding of NPR has always imposed a different cost in terms of constitutional values as a media organization funded in part by taxpayers, including many who view the outlet as extremely biased. Such bias would not make NPR a standout among other news organizations. However, NPR is not like the others. While NPR prides itself on annual pledge drives, conservative taxpayers are not given a choice of whether to fund it. Congress effectively forces them to pledge every year, and they do not even get a tote bag in return.
This debate over the state-funding of NPR has developed an added concern recently due to changes in the media. There is a shift in recent years toward advocacy journalism as leading figures denounce the very concept of “objectivity” in the media.
Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press, declared “It’s objective by whose standard? …That standard seems to be white, educated, and fairly wealthy.”
Ironically, that happens to be the main demographic of the NPR audience. According to surveys, that also includes a largely liberal audience that’s less racially diverse than…wait for it…Fox News.
NPR has been on the forefront of the advocacy journalism debate. Indeed, it has at times seemed to move toward dispensing with the journalism part altogether. NPR announced that reporters could participate in activities that advocate for “freedom and dignity of human beings” on social media and in real life. Reporters just need approval over what are deemed freedom or dignity enhancing causes. Presumably, that does not include pro-life or gun rights rallies.
While NPR is not alone in moving toward an advocacy model, it certainly makes the state-funding of NPR more and more problematic. Criticism of the obvious bias has not deterred NPR, which has doubled down on its exclusion of conservative voices. Berliner noted that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans.
That includes its Chief Executive Officer Katherine Maher. After years of criticism over NPR’s political bias, the search for a new CEO was viewed as an opportunity to select someone without such partisan baggage. Instead, it selected Maher, who has been criticized for controversial postings on subjects ranging from looters to Trump. Those now-deleted postings included a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of political commentary.
Maher lashed out at Berliner, calling his criticism and call for greater diversity in the newsroom “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
That one-sided division of the editors is increasingly reflected in its audience. Berliner noted that in 2011, 26 percent of the audience was still conservative. Now that is down to just 11 percent. At some point, that percentage is likely to reflect mere momentary dial confusion as NPR chases away its last conservative listeners. In the meantime, its audience is now approaching an estimated 70 percent liberal listeners, but it still expects 100 percent of taxpayers to fund its programming and bias.
The market tends to favor those products and programming that the public wants. If the demand for NPR is insufficient to support its budget, then Congress should not make up the shortfall and prop up the programming. If it is sufficient, then there is no need for the subsidy.
This debate should not turn on whether you agree with the slant of NPR programming. NPR clearly wants to maintain a liberal advocacy in its programming, and it has every right to do so. It does not have a right to federal funding.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Jonathan: This is your second column about NPR. Give it a rest. The reality is that even the MAGA Republicans in the House have reauthorized funding for NPR–so it’s unlikely NPR is going to defunded anytime soon! So permit me to segue into some other important news:
DJT was in Pennsylvania on Saturday campaigning. He even visited Gettysburg where the greatest battle of the Civil War was fought–where Gen. Lee lost his great ambition of creating a separate slave country. But DJT had this weird statement about the Battle:
” Gettysburg. Wow. I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to look and to watch. And the statement of Robert E Lee–who’s no longer in favor–‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill’. They were fighting uphill. He said, ‘Wow, that was a big mistake’. He lost his general, and they were fighting, ‘Never fight uphill, me boys!’. But it was too late”.
I defy anyone to make any sense out of DJT’s statement. Maybe something out of the Pirates of the Caribbean or Lucky charms leprechaun? And the part about Lee being “no longer in favor”? Gen. Lee was never in favor because he led the insurrection to preserve slavery!
Anyway, there were a lot of reactions to DJT’s statement. One person on “X” said: “Trump just gave his own Gettysburg Address. It was incoherent!”. Ron Filipkowski opined: “If we asked which General led Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, is there any chance he would give the right answer?” I suppose we should give DJT another pass with all his incoherent ramblings. He’s preoccupied by having to appear every day in his first criminal trial in Manhattan.
Finally, I don’t want to gloat. But there is a new report from psychology researchers at the U of Minnesota that has found a link between “left-wing” beliefs and both higher IQ scores and genetic markers believed to be associated with higher intelligence. Now I won’t take all the credit. I owe everything to my parents and my ancestors. I can hardly wait for the negative reaction for some on this blog. But, I suppose, you have to consider the source of any criticism!
You apparently have a very high opinion of yourself, typical of arrogant narcissism endemic of privileged white snots. The assertion that high IQ is somehow embedded in
classic marxism that has failed most of the world reveals you ignorance.
“Gen. Lee lost his great ambition of creating a separate slave country”? General Lee was strongly against slavery, he freed all the slaves he inherited, he was chosen by President Lincoln to be the Commanding General of the Union forces and declined after two weeks of pondering the offer because of States Sovereignty. He believed that slavery would be phased out no matter who won. General Lee wrote during the Civil War, “slavery as an institution is a moral & political evil in any country.” What have you sacrificed to end slavery? There are more slaves in the world today than during the Civil War. How many have you freed? Half as many as General Lee? A third? How much of your fortune have you sacrificed to that cause? A fifth as much as General Lee did? No? None? Creating division and hatred by spreading falsehoods is easy but only makes the situation worse. Side note: the slave owner with the most slaves in North Carolina during the civil war was a black man. He definitely wanted a separate slave country – not General Lee.
Dennis pretty much never has a clue about who or what he is speaking about.
That’s why I never read his BS.
Our first black president not only involved us in several new wars after taking an unearned Riksbank Peace Prize; he added to the number of slaves vastly, between his destruction of Libya and open invitation to the unlimited migrant invasion we are enjoying today.
TC said: “He believed that slavery would be phased out no matter who won.”
As it was in Europe, where, unbeknownst to many, African slavery had a long and sordid history, beginning in the time of the Roman Empire, and persisting for far over a milennium, through, and well beyond, the Medieval Period (500 – 1500 AD). No wars were prosecuted in Europe to end black slavery; Europeans evolved away from it as a fundamentally uneconomic institution. That would have happened in the US, as well. However, the real reason for the US Civil War had much less to do with slavery than it did with ensconcing the Federal govenment as the only important governing authority, while dimishing the Consitutionally guaranteed power of the indivdual States, particularly in the South.
“Never fight uphill” is obviously good tactical military advice. Do you really not understand why? If so, it is you, not Trump, who is stupid.
Higher IQ among totalitarian lefties? That’s beyond laughable.
Let’s test your IQ.
How many covid bioweapon shots have you had so far? 9? 10?
Is Dr. Fauci a hero? Or a psychopath?
Was it an accidental pandemic? Or a plandemic?
If you are going to fund NPR – then you must fund InfoWars.
If anything Infowars is less biased.
What is your problem with Trump’s statement ?
Pretty sure you will find they teach much the same thing at West Point.
Is it actually necescary to explain to you why military leaders from Napolean to the present try to avoid “uphill battles” ?
We even have an aphorism to that effect in our language.
Trumps remarks are dull factually correct, pretty obvious.
And YOU think they are difficult to decipher ?
Gettysburg is the “high water mark of the confederacy”.
The battle is viewed as a turning point in the war.
The point of conflict – just west of gettyburg was close to an accident.
Confederate forces were moving north and east – hoping to cross the susquehanna.
They had a minor goal of hitting a shoe factory and getting boots for Confederate soldiers.
And a more significant goal of trying to push the Union into holding more troops in the north for defensive purposes.
A confederate victory at Gettysburg – would have prolonged the war significantly.
Gettysburg was also a turning point in that it undermined the myth of Lees invincibility.
Robert E. Lee was one of the most brilliant military leaders this country has ever produced.
He worked miracles fighting for the confederacy.
Yet at Gettysburg he pretty much blew it.
His forces arrived slightly late to the battlefield allowing Disorganized Union forces the choice of the best defensive positions.
Lees excellent cavalry under Jeb Stuart was off on its own and never featured in the most important fight of Lees career.
And Ultimately Lee signed off on Picketts charge which was the stupidest move of his career.
He launched an uphill attack against entrenched defenders with a long and unsheltered approach.
So YES Trump’s remarks are a an accurate summary of Gettysburg.
Gettysburg was also politically important. Lincoln used this moment in which Union soldiers – not just generals, out fought confederates in most every way for pretty much the first time in the war to deliver the gettysburg address.
The victory at Gettysburg also lead near immediately to the Emancipation proclaimation.
I believe that Eisenhower is on record saying that he would not tolerate any criticism of Robert E. Lee. Coincidentally, there is a record of Lee saying that he would not tolerate any criticisim of General/ President Grant. The men who risk their lives on the battlefield respect honorable and competent opponents. To the American leftist, honor and competence are unknown concepts.
People in the military often carry their own politics – some openly. Some not.
But generally their use their skills in service to their country.
Lee was a virginian first and american 2nd. He used his world class skills to the benefit of a less than perfect state that he was loyal too.
Those on the left seem to demand that we can only support perfect government.
Therefore Eisenhower, and Patton and Bradley and MacArthur and Halsey and Nimitz, and …
should have refused to serve the united states – because it was less than perfect and allowed Hitler and Tojo to take over the world.
John Say: I have a clue about why DJT took the opportunity to remark at Gettysburg about the futility of “uphill battles”. Why did he focus on that? Because he could relate to what the Confederate troops faced against the Union armies. DJT faces his own “uphill battles” in all the criminal cases. Any comment on that interpretation?
Lee was never in favor ? Really ? If Lee is not taught today at West point – that would only be because of recent Woke nonsense during the Biden administration.
Gettysburg is so significant because it is such a great inexplicable failure on the part of Lee.
Regardless, for nearly 200 years throughout this country there are favorable reminders of Robert E. Lee all across this country.
While you are clueless about him and have your facts entirely wrong, there is nothing wrong with Criticizing Lee – any more than criticizing Grant or Patton, or Eisenhower or Naplolean or Rommel, or Ceasar.
That does not alter the fact that Lee was a brilliant military leader. He stood at the forefront at a time of many other great military leaders.
The north would have quickly obliterated the south in the Civil war – but for the vastly superior military leadership of the south.
It took years for the North to develop the military leaders capable of defeating Lee and other Southern leaders.
While we should not underestimate the accomplishments of Union leaders such as Grant and Sherman, it should also be noted that they defeated Lee with larger forces, and ultimately more advanced weapons.
Dennis – From Wikipedia.
“Pickett’s Charge (July 3, 1863), also known as the Pickett–Pettigrew–Trimble Charge, was an infantry assault ordered by Confederate General Robert E. Lee”
There are many studies of politics and IQ. It is generally true that liberals have higher IQ’s than conservatives.
The difference tends to be about 2pts.
But there is some variance in the results of these studies.
Many studies show conservatives with higher IQ’s than those on the left.
There is a pattern to whether a study indicates conservatives have higher or lower IQ’s than those on the left.
The pattern is whether libertarians are included as conservative.
When Libertarians are included as part of conservative the SMALL number of libertarians dramatically raises the average IQ score of conservatives to several points higher than those on the left.
I beleive the average IQ score for libertarians is about 120.
Separately I would pretty much ZERO weight in YOUR evaluation of some study coming out of academia today.
Here is a meta analysis of the studies on IQ and politics.
“Intelligence has a positive impact on having any political opinion, with those with the highest IQs found to be politically center-right and centrist, respectively. However, there is no evidence that IQ is significantly heritable. Studies have shown that people who expressed support for centrist parties (including centre-right and centre-left) had higher average IQs compared to those who supported more clearly left or right parties. People who had a political orientation at all tended to have a higher IQ than those who said they had no political orientation. Low IQ, measured in many different ways, is associated with right-wing social ideology and prejudice, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of studies published in the European Journal of Personality. However, people from the middle range of countries had slightly higher IQ scores than those from the liberal countries, implying that the negative correlation between IQ and conservatism is not as strong as previously reported. The distribution of political views among high-IQ Americans was obtained from the General Social Survey.”
Of course you want to gloat – because you are actually a low IQ person incapable of grasping that a headline is not enough to fully evaluate a claim, and that hearsay regarding one study is not the same as the actual body of science”
There are actually a large number of weak correlations between various attributes and politics.
Though we have to be careful with many of them as the past and current definitions of liberal are radically different.
Turley is Liberal, Derschowitz is Liberal. But most of the left today – you as an example are illiberal.
The current illiberal left is most strongly similar to the past far right.
Though again there are plenty of counter examples.
The strongest liberal conservative (rather than left right) correlation is to creativity. Creativity and intelligence are NOT the same thing.
But it is common for creativity and intelligence to coexist.
Successful Entrepreneurs are almost always liberal or libertarian.
I would note that Trump is a successful entrepreneur absolutely displays the creative and fluid thinking that is common to successful entrepreneurs. Temperamentally Trump is liberal – not conservative.
Artists of all kinds tend to be highly creative, and the also tend to be more liberal.
They are also far more likely to be outside the norm in many ways – such as gay or trans.
Conservatives tend to be very successful in businesses that are not especially entrepreneurial of creative – that is the vast majority of business.
That is why the vast majority of startups fail, and the leaders of incredibly successful startups – the Musks, and Jobs’s and Bezo’s and Theils tend to be libertarian in temperament if not literally in ideology.
An incredibly successful startup has to very quickly manage BOTH creativity and well managed – which creative people pretty much never can manage.
I would also note that the vast majority of successful people – especially in business tend to be functional sociopaths.
I am certain that you have accused Trump of being a sociopath before – and that is likely atleast partly Trump.
It is also likely True of Schiff, and Obama, and Schumer and Pelosi and McConnell.
Sociopaths can be incredibly difficult people to deal with. But they are NOT all or even mostly criminals. Criminals are just disproportionately sociopaths. Just as mass shooters are nearly all paranoid schizophrenics while at the same time Paranoid schitzophrenics are about twice as prone to violence as the average american – that makes them as prone to violence as blacks.
My point is there are all kinds of correlations.
“Multiple studies found that the average IQ for African Americans was
lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103,
106, and 113, respectively;”
These differences are much larger than those based on ideology.
The IQ’s of black African’s rather than african americans are lower still.
Further despite left wing talking points – these differences are confirmed by IQ tests that do not depend on language skills or education, or anything cultural.
Most standardized tests are actaully IQ tests and one of the ways that standardized tests are checked for things like cultural bias is by comparing the results to IQ tests that do not depending on language, culture. education – such as graphical pattern matching tests.
The strong correlation between Race and IQ something that has persistently been demonstrated for over 100 years. is one of the major factors that challenges the claim that IQ is not heritable.
The fact that Black IQ’s in the US where blacks have on average 20% european DNA are higher than those in Africa suggests that there is a genetic foundation to IQ.
John Say,
A recent Finnish study found leftist tend to be more depressed, anxiety issues or other mental health issues.
Dennis and Natasha prove the study correct.
Another trait leftists seem to lack, common sense.
John Say: One of the characteristics of a “low IQ person” is the inability to recognize when another person is poking fun at them. I don’t pretend the study I cited is the final authority on whether people with “leftist” views have superior intelligence. It was my way of showing people of lower IQ don’t have a sense of humor. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker! Lighten up, Jon.
But really? “Turley is Liberal”? A person with higher intelligence should recognize that Turley is NOT a Liberal. He spends his time in his columns defending DJT–who is not just a conservative but a REACTIONARY! Turley works for Fox–the premier CONSERVATIVE news outlet. He turned his back on his “liberal” roots in Chicago years ago! Even a low-IQ person could recognize that!
And I was amazed a person of your intelligence would trot out the racist tropes about the IQs of Black people. How do you account for MLK, Frederick Douglas, Justice Marshall and Justices Thomas and Jackson? What about George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman, W.E.B DuBois, Barak Obama–or Thomas Sowell and Neil deGrasse–just to name some of the hundreds of other famous and intelligent Black Americans? It seems the people with low IQs are also the most virulent racists!
Dennis , Recently you told us all that Melinia was not campaigning for Trump
https://youtu.be/5s_KeRGdtVA
Sure seems that way to me.
Also seems to piss all over your idiocy that Trump is anti-lgbt
The supreme court just Reversed California Courts 9-0 over property charges on 5th and 14th amendment grounds.
This is directly applicable to the Judge EnMoron case.
Government can not take your property based on vague and unsubstantiated claims regarding the costs of your actions.
While this case did not involve a civil fraud claim – it DID involve a claim by government for costs that were not justified.
I would note that though the word Fraud keeps getting used in the EnMoron case – it is NOT a criminal case – though this decision MAY be extended to criminal takings cases such as asset forfeiture. The case is question is not about Trump. It has nothing to do with Trump, it is part of a long line of supreme court cases that have slowly been restoring property rights after the infamous little pink house Kelo decision.
In the EnMoron case – the 8th amendment prohibition against excessive fines also comes into play.
As well as NY case law that allowed non-jury trials under this law because any fines would be deminimus.
In light of this decision you can expect Trump’s lawyer to demand that the EnMoron decision be thrown out in its entirety as it is confiscation of property without just compensation and without establishing that Trump’s actions resulted in ACTUAL HARM.
https://youtu.be/Y-UUi5Unjs0
Things are also heating up for Fanni Willis.
It is odd that Trump is facing a 34 count felony trial today for something that is not a crime – while Willis with near certainty lied multiple times under oath, and if the now FOUR whistle blowers are correct has misappropriated and possibly Embezzled government – including Federal funds. Beyond the original allegation that Willis used Federal funds that were earmarked for a program to break the cycle for juvenile offenders to by ipads and other office perqs – which DOJ has announced that it is investigation. There are also whistleblower allegations that she used govenrment funds for vactions for herself and other staff. Sort of resembles the claims made in her DQ hearing.
The GA appelate court has scheduled an emergency hearing on Willis’s disqualification moving faster because of new evidence.
The GA house and Senate are investigating – and there appears to be BIPARTISAN interest in this investigation.
We will have to see if GA Democrats are more honest than House Democrats.
In the NY Trial – Judge Merchan AGAIN refused to recuse himself. Jury selection has started – so I beleive jephardy may have attached. Should an appeals court find that Merchan was required to recuse this case would be over completely.
It is virtually certain that This Trial will be tossed by Some appelate court at some point – though the NY appeals court is doing much as they did during the EnMoron case – suggesting problems while doing nothing to correct the abuses of the Judge until AFTER the trial and verdict.
That appears to be the goal – not to legitimately convict Trump, not to follow the law, but to allow left wing nut Talking heads to label Trump as a convicted Felon for the next 200+ days in hopes of altering the election outcome. While the real felon is in the WH.
The mess in the mideast is growing worse – With Iran staging a major – though fortunately impotent attack on Israel and we now await Israels response.
Abysmal foreign policy on the part of Democrats has leading us to ever wider wars all over the globe.
And of court – for the 3rd straight month – Inflation has RISEN – so much for even a tiny hope that Biden will see a slightly stronger economy before the election.
I would further note that the Trump trial will NOT be broadcast.
US Supreme court oral arguments are now broadcast live.
Fanni Willis sought to have her case broadcast live – and Trump’s lawyers agreed.
The live broadcasts of the Willis DQ hearings were publicly damning of Willis and a significant reasont hat she is facing so much blow back now. People watched and listend to Willis., Wade, and Bradley and caught – as Judge McAfee did the “odour of mendacity”
Kyle Ritenhouse with near certainty got a fair trial – because the public saw the proceedings and the court had to behave itself in front of the public.
I have little doubt that neither the Carroll, the EnMoron nor the Merchan trial would be able to go forward had the public been allowed to directly experience the demeanor of the judges, the prosecutors, the attorneys and the witnesses.
This unwillingness of SOME courts to be themselves judged by the public is MOSTLY not partisan – My local courts lean heavily right and they will jail you if you try to take an apple watch into a courtroom.
And absolutely positively Judges behave egregiously – without respect to politics when they are sheltered from the public hearing their actual words. In fact local courts infamously have judges instructing court reporters to edit out the inappropriate remarks of the judge.
The refusal of Judges like Merchan Kaplan and EnMoron to allow any record that actually captures the demeanor of the proceedings, is not particularly partisan. Though it is a sign of the general a**holery of large numbers of judges.
I have attacked Judge Kaplan, EnMoron and Merchan here. They are all self evidently politically biased.
But one thing that the left is probably correct about – they would behave similarly lawlessly and as similar assholes to ANYONE before them they do not like. And Judge frequently take an instant dislike to those before them – sometimes prosecutors, but far more often defense attorney’s and defendants.
I would further note that the average criminal defendants conduct is far more egregious than Trump’s
But there is a difference – those who are drug unwillingly into the court house – are NOT obligated to be respectful and deferential – even if they are actually guilty. Judge ARE barred from prejudging cases, AND from even the appearance of impropriety.
A standard that is mostly evident in breach.
Judge Merchan’s conflict is especially egregious, probably even criminal. But far too many judges refuse to remove themselves from cases when they can not be fair.
It is true that those with higher “IQ” (whatever that’s worth) are aggressively recruited into cults called colleges and universities, where they brainwashed in left-wing beliefs.
*where they are
I have told you repeatedly that the Hush money claim can NEVER meet the standard to be a campaign contribution – much less an inllegal one, much less the even higher standard of a felonious one.
About 1 minute in MK interviews a Clinton Federal Election commission chair who makes is clear – it is virtually impossible to meet the criteria necessary for the private payment of an expense that can arguably benefit an election to be a federal election law violation.
This commissioner failed to cover an even larger problem – which is that even if you magically decide it WAS a campaign contribution – So long as it was by Trump it is NOT illegal. – Because anyone can contribute as much as they want to their own campaign.
As Derschowitz later points out – this case never should have gotten in the door of the courtroom – it is that bad – it does not have ONE fatal flaw – it has fatal flaws every way you turn.
https://youtu.be/wCjwjcVYHTA
Separately Trump’s lawyers got ONE important reversalk out of Merchan that could easily end the case.
Initially Merchan refused to allow jurors off for Passover. This is massively important – and obviously unconstitutional.
it is important because the ONE group that is strongly pro Trump in Manhattan is religiously observant Jews.
I would further note that even in Manhattan protesters showed up to supposed Trump – Black Pro-Trump protesters and Asian pro-trump protesters.
Next the AZ supreme court Disqualified the entire DA’s office in a case – why ? Because the victim of the alleged crime was staff at the DA’s office. The Court pointed out that the standard was NOT state law, but US constitutional law, and that where there is the mere appearance of conflict with a single member – not even the DA themselves of the DA’s office, it is not likely that you can undo the PERCEPTION of bias.
The AZ case is likely to influence the GA courts hearing the willis matter, and ultimately the NY courts and potentially the supreme court.
While there is no certainty that other courts will follow the same standard – the AZ court made clear their decision was based on US constitiutional due process and presumption of innocence grounds. As well as assuring that the courts do not even allow the appearance of bias.
Regardless, this is relevant – not just to Merchan, and EnMoron. But specifically to Willis, James and Bragg.
You can not run for election as a prosecutor, promising to “get a person” and then proceded to do so.
So that slow people like you can understand – as the AZ Supreme court noted – A conflict does not make the defendant unprosecutable.
It merely bars those with a conflict or the appearance of a conflict from prosecuting – and the standard is HIGHER for judges.
Judge McAffee can ask if other DA’s offices in GA want to take up the case.
In NY – Bragg, and James would be barred from prosecution Trump – but DA’s that had not campaigned on “getting Trump” would be free to do so. Merchan would be barred – because his daughter fiscally benefits from the outcome of the case.
Kaplan and particularly EnMoron would be barred for clear bias in their public and in court statements.
I am told that in the first day – nearly 100 jurors were dismissed because the admitted they were biased.
The problem – as we have seen in so many other of these political persecutions, is that those on the left are willing to lie.
Multiple cases have had one or more members of the jury who CLEARLY were biased as evident from their social media posts.
Merchan refused to allow the names of the jurors to be made public, so there will be no grassroots vetting of jurors.
So we are likely to see several left wing nut liars get on this jury.
NPR in the past = listening to white savior cardboard. NPR in the present = listening to the ramblings of the emotional equivalent of very, very privileged teenagers. Mother Jones is a close second with their crusty-aging-hippy-I-haven’t-paid-attention-to-anything-whatsoever-in-40-years-and-still-think-the-man-is-some-republican-dude-from-Texas; let them fend for themselves and see how well they do. My tax dollars do not go to Fox; I do not see why they should go to NPR – National. Public. Retardation (in the truest sense of the word, as in stymied and regressive, not congenitally disadvantaged).
Public retardation? I.e., like public schooling, but for old people.
NO! NO! NO! NO!
ABSOULUTELY NOT!
State subsidized media has not place in a free society!
Great piece. NPR should acknowlege it’s. Iewpoint and move on. Without my taxes, thank you.
The entitlement to use the public’s money to incocate leftist agenda and propaganda has a long history at public broadcasting.
If you have a product that is in demand and provides good value to a majority of people, they will willingly seek it out and pay for it.
Absolutely! NPR now functions as an arm of the DNC, so it should be financed as such.
So, DEI not working so much at NPR. Isn’t that special. I don’t want taxpayer funded abortions, even overseas taxpayer funded abortions. I don’t want Federal dollars spent to register democrats and harvest ballots. I don’t want federal dollars spent to slant the news, nor censor the news. Either make NPR stand on its own (I’m a monthly supporter, just don’t watch their news) or federally subsidize Fox.
The government run by Democrats funds a lot of things that the general populists do not agree with. NPR and gender affirming mutilation are just a couple of examples. Deep down they think just like Bill Maher when he says that killing babies is murder but it’s okay because there are 8 billion people on the planet and the dead babies won’t be missed. It’s just the same eugenics platform position that the Democrats have always had. Hitler, Mao, Bill Maher and the Democratic Party seem to have the same thoughts regarding population control. All of them have dressed it up with compassion for the planet to save mankind but the underlying agenda hasn’t changed.
Adam Carolla nails in the first 20 seconds
“.. (taxpayers) do not even get a tote bag in return.” 🤣
It’s funny how Dems are all-inclusive with whatever combination of ways people choose to identify themselves.
Except when it comes to being on the ‘other team’ politically. Then they’re ‘monsters’ to be shunned, silenced, etc.
You know how I know this? I heard it on NPR. Yes, defund. Unless also giving equal funds to ‘the other team’?
It’s foolish to give up on standards-based journalism. If anything, journalists serious about surviving in the biz another 25 years should be doubling down on standards-definition, broadening them to cover principles for news selection (the public, long-term interest should dominate). Audiences are gradually abandoning biased, politically-charged, emotionally-draining infotainment.
Clearly, NPR needs new leadership who can move it away from advocacy, and towards the common interest.
I depend on NPR news when I’m driving in the car, and take the time to email any NPR reporter who is editorializing and passing along misleading information.
The NPR model, which relies mostly on donations, is better than media that rely on advertising, because who wants to have content broken up every few minutes by ads?
PbinCA…..of course those same NPR Reporters always respond to your emails and admit their errror then amend their pieces on the air….right?
By the way….Dennis forgot to add the rest of the story about those super intelligent folks also produce confused, afflicted, and emotionally disturbed children….which might account for how Dennis sees the World.
It appears those dull, blue collar workers, who attend Church, eat meals with their family are less prone to produce troubled children…..but Dennis ignores those results exactly as we know he will.
I would end funding for NPR until they can prove their DEI Program is effective for their own staffing and not a dime otherwise.
A good start is simply fire the whole lot and start over….letting incumbents re-apply and compete fairly with the competition…..you know like DEI is labeled to work.
Ralph,
Isn’t Hunter Biden supposed to be some really smart guy?
Professor Turley,
In your article, you state: “Ironically, that happens to be the main demographic of the NPR audience. According to surveys, that also includes a largely liberal audience that’s less racially diverse than…wait for it…Fox News.”
However, YOUR OWN LINK states:
“The political breakdown of NPR listeners is just as diverse as its demographics and depicts a media source that can reach your preferred target audience. (NPR Audience Profile 2022.)
Republican: 32.6
Democrat: 34.1
Independent: 24.5
No affiliation: 6.8
Other: 2.0”
If the site you provided is accurate, how can you possibly call that breakdown a “largely liberal” audience?
Who reviews the citations in your articles to confirm they reflect the point you are making? This is a glaring mistake that undercuts the entire purpose of this post.
Presumably, you equate “largely liberal” with being a member of one identified political party/faction? And critically, as you point out, “If the site you provided is accurate”. And accuracy in the face of bias is exactly the concern.
Professor Turley equates “largely liberal” with political party affiliation. This was HIS link.
Donations to NPR are tax-deductible.
In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban.
For example, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. Consequently, a written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden.
From the IRS:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
While we are getting rid of government subsidies we should
Get rid of corporate taxes entirely.
Then it does not matter whether a business engages in political advocacy or not.
We should tax money when it becomes income. When it is paid to employees or to business owners.
While it remains inside a business – whether that is a civic group, or invested in a for profit, it should not be taxed.
Invested money should never be taxes until it becomes personal income.
NPR is just doing what other media services do – giving their listeners what they want to hear. That audience (and the people who donate to their local stations) has always tilted left. Historically, they were mostly balanced, and I really enjoyed Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Until Trump. At that point, the skew went way left. People like me stopped listening, and the people that remained wanted more skew. This became a vicious cycle, aided and abetted but he fact that the people running NPR believed what they were presenting.
That’s all well and good. A media outlet can skew however they want. If NPR wants to be the MSNBC of the radio, go ahead. I have, however, stopped contributing to my local public stations and don’t listen to any of their programming anymore. My tax dollars shouldn’t go to any of them either. Let those for whom the content is intended play for it, either with their contributions, or by listening to ads.
Time to defund NPR as well as the entire CBP. Let them survive on their own dime if they can.
“Defund NPR”
I have no interest in NPR’s brand of reporting, and no interest in supporting their tripe. Leave the financing to “listeners NOT like me.”
Be realistic! What else would you expect from ANY entity that finds a significant amount of its financial support from another entity? A biased relationship.
NPR’s government money support model was hatched by the Democratic Party, signed into law by a Democratic president and maintained for decades by a mainly Democratic congressional base. And now we are shocked that NPR openly displays a bias for the Democratic Party in terms of presentations and reporting??????? This is not at all shocking. And, borrowing and modifying the words of another to explain to those that are shocked and dismayed at this biased relationship:
‘The fault, dear Uri, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.’
This situation of a state supported biased media it is to be expected and avoided (unless you believe that the world needs yet another Tass, Pravda or People’s Daily). Any presenter from such an organization should be suspected of pushing the government’s agenda.
To support such an operation from that same government’s tax base is nothing more than plunder of the citizens. Frédéric Bastiat would be appalled and consider Uri naive.