Below is my column on the move to end the funding of National Public Radio (NPR). I will be speaking tomorrow on the history and future of American journalism at the Library of Congress. The funding of NPR has long been controversial on various levels, including those of us who oppose state-supported media in any form. This should be a moment of true self-reflection for the media in these changing and precarious times for the free press.
Here is the column:
This week, President Trump signed an executive order that seeks to restrict public funds to NPR and PBS. Since appropriations are made two years in advance, the immediate impact of the order is debatable. However, it is a moment the media should use for long-overdue self-reflection.
I have been critical of some of the administration’s attacks on the media, from barring the Associated Press from some White House events to lifting protections of the media from subpoenas regarding their sources. However, if these objections are going to have any legitimacy, the media must take a serious look at what it has become.
This coming week, I have the honor of giving the keynote address for the Center for Integrity in News Reporting at the Library of Congress. For many of us who have been part of the media for decades, these are precarious times for the American press. The damage done to the press in the last decade would have been unimaginable when I started. The most chilling fact is that it is almost entirely self-inflicted.
The state of American media was captured recently when the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association (and MSNBC correspondent) Eugene Daniels declared, “We are not the opposition.” Given the controversy that had occurred over the association originally booking a vehemently anti-Trump comedian for the dinner, it seemed more like a punchline than a plausible claim.
As if to bring that comedic point home the next day, the New York Times published its collection of essays titled, “A Road Map of Trump’s Lawless Presidency.” A recent study showed that media coverage of the Trump Administration has been 92 percent negative.
The undoing of American journalism began in “J-schools,” where young reporters were taught that the touchstones of neutrality and objectivity were no longer viable. At schools like the University of Texas, students are told that it is time to “leave neutrality behind.” Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, has insisted that “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
Editors soon picked up on the change and declared that “Objectivity has got to go” in hiring reporters committed to what I have called “advocacy journalism.”
The result has been a transformation of American journalism into a type of echo chamber that amplifies liberal and often partisan Democratic talking points. That includes framing the news in overtly biased ways — for example, describing rioting as “fiery but mostly peaceful.”
The public were treated as clay to be shaped by an enlightened media in what they would see and hear. It was insulting and alienating.
Recently, Trump noticed a wounded veteran with a Let’s Go Brandon! sticker and the president jokingly asked “who is that?” That was a far more profound question than he may have intended.
“Let’s Go Brandon!” became a familiar political battle cry not just against former President Joe Biden but also against the mainstream media. It was first heard during an Oct. 2021 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after winning his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. When NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F— Joe Biden,” the reporter quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
The response of the public itself has been deafening. Readers and viewers have left mainstream media in a mass exodus. Despite falling revenues and ratings, most of the media outlets seem entirely clueless or, at least, unyielding. Even as media outlets plummet in revenue, editors and reporters continue to saw at the branch upon which they are sitting.
When Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos brought in Robert Lewis, a British media executive, to try to restore profitability and readership to the paper, he was met with a virtual mutiny. Lewis nevertheless dropped this truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around. We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
It did not matter. The Post has been writing primarily for itself and a minority of the population for years. The staff seemed shocked that Bezos actually wanted for the paper to sustain itself rather than treat it as a liberal billionaire’s vanity project.
That brings us back to NPR. Some of us have objected for years to the government subsidizing one radio outlet. It only made it worse that NPR was overwhelmingly Democratic in both its staff and its coverage. For years, NPR ignored complaints over its bias. It had a lock on federal funding to subsidize operations, even though its audience was shrinking.
One editor finally had enough. Uri Berliner went public, pointing out that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans. NPR and its CEO, Katherine Maher, were dismissive and frankly arrogant. They attacked Berliner, who ultimately resigned in disgust.
Maher recently had a disastrous appearance before Congress in which she attempted to walk back her own biased public statements against Republicans and Trump.
Some of us oppose NPR’s funding as a form of state-sponsored media — a fundamental contradiction with principles of freedom of speech and the press. However, this is a moment the rest of the media should not let pass.
NPR was ultimately undermined by its own arrogance. Editors and journalists did not have to worry about the fact that its shrinking audience was overwhelmingly white, liberal and affluent. Due to its support in Congress, it could make the vast majority of the country, which does not listen to its programming, help pay for its programming.
It will now have to choose between sustaining its bias or expanding its audience. It certainly has every right to be a left-leaning outlet (as do right-leaning outlets), but it has to sustain itself in the marketplace. It is the same question that other media outlets must face as more Americans turn to new media. With polls showing the press at record lows in trust, media companies are increasingly writing for each other rather than most of the public.
The choice now rests with the media and, more importantly, the public. American journalism will either re-embrace greater neutrality or continue toward insolvency and irrelevancy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Turley is addressing two or three issues that are independent as if they are related.
There should be NO state sponsored media. It is irrelevant whether that media leans right or left, whether it is biased or not, whether it is a sinecure for left leaning journalists or not.
The media is one of MYRIADS of things that government should not fund.
Pretty much EVERYTHING that can be accomplished by people acting freely as individuals or groups without government must be done by individuals or groups without government.
Next Turley addresses bias in the media – particularly NPR. Turley identifies NYT and WaPo which makes it clear the bias problem is not confined to government funded media.
But again – bias in the media is NOT the business of the law or government. In a true free market, the problem will correct itself – if as Turley says that bias undermines the credibility of journalists with the public.
And we are seeing exactly that – the rise of new media journalism and the decline of the MSM. That is occuring because the new media is providing people what they want the MSM is not. It is likely that in the end there will still be a small niche for biased left wing journalism, just as there is a niche for biased right wing journalism. For a wide variety of reasons we likely need and are based served by the existance of some biased journalism at the extremes.
But government should stay out of it and people should decide. If enough people wish to support biased journalism then it will survive and thrive commensurate with the appetite of the public for that biased journalism.
Finally Turley addresses the fact that this cut in govenrment funding is likely self inflicted. That is likely true. But that too is a problem. We should not fund govenrment media, because it is innocuous. We should not fund anything just because it is not controversial or does not offend many. The problem is not the arrogance of the media – that will be punished or rewarded by the people directly.
John B Say-Nicely thought out and expressed. Even a democrat could understand it.
Agree.
This from Uri Berliner’s piece cited by Prof. Turley above: “It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding.” I’ve listened to NPR for decades. Which NPR was he listening to? The blind leading the blind . . .
Well said. I fully agree!
Since the First Amendment protects the American people from censorship, protects the press, protects the right to petition the government, protects religious freedom and protects citizens from theocratic laws (bans religious institutions from imposing their interpretation onto citizens).
Shouldn’t we first debate removing 501C tax exempt status from most religious institutions. Let them pay their own way!
Why are they charitable donations?
Anonymous 9:23 am- I would eliminate 501C for everybody, including churches. I am neither agnostic nor atheist but we still don’t need 501C for churches or anyone else.
We should remove all 501C3. One might as why, Here are just 5 reasons.
1. Widespread Abuse and Fraud
2. Political Manipulation
3.Distortion of Fair Competition
4. Elite Power and Lack of Accountability
5. Public Cost Without Public Return
Katherine Maher has stated that “only one-percent” of NPR funding directly comes from the federal government. If that were the case, NPR should be able to easily survive without any federal government funding by some simple belt-tightening. However, in reality NPR also receives funding from (federally funded) colleges and universities (10%), and state and local governments (5%). and from its parent, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (8%). That’s 23%. PBS is also funded by the federal government. PBS receives federal funding (15%), and receives funding from state (13%) and local (3%) governments governments, and from (federally and state funded) colleges and universities (8%). That’s 39%. And as they document at the end of broadcasts, significant funding for production comes from multiple (mostly progressive) not-for profit foundations, and “from (taxpaying) viewers like you”. If that’s not state-sponsored media, then I don’t know what would be.
https://www.westernjournal.com/fact-check-much-pbs-npr-revenue-comes-government-funding/
Cumulative over 25 years?
Whenever cutting funding to NPR is discussed, it is almost always met with the counter argument that the amount of gov’t funding is a pittance compared to their other funding. So then why would cutting this pittance be the end of democracy and free press?
That it is a pittance is irrelevant.
DOGE found LOTS of funding that was idiotic but small.
Who is John B Say? An alternate?
DOGE never even tackled the DOD. We all know there is massive waste there. Was Elon not that excited about that endeavor? Too hard? Not easy pickings like USAID or NPR.
I left MSM many years ago. They have been predictable and irrelevant for a long time. I never even view CNN to check the pulse because they don’t have one nor do any of the other outlets.
So you left MSM, so where do you get the “news” from, some silly blog like this?
Brett Baier’s Special Report on FNC is, as it claims, “fair, balanced and unafraid”. Everything else on FNC is biased right. I am not aware of any objective news program on any other channel. If there is, please identify it.
If we are so lucky as to see the mainstream media and NPR collapse, it will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party performs without their locked in gallery of press reporters, canned cheers and audiences. One would also wonder what the public will do if suddenly they are assaulted with “balanced news”. Will the public be able to handle the shock. Now a certain number of the true believers will simply close their ears and hum but I wonder about those who stand in the middle of the political spectrum and will they be able to really get to see there are other ways to interpret events especially if it is delivered in full sentences and not just sound bites and fragments of quotes.
The same can be said of economic data. Many will likely have noted that the “success of Bidenomics” was frequently touted throughout the ether until the election occurred and then everything turned to doom, gloom and “recession”. Strange dichotomy.
I would like to see a world where we can see both sides of an argument and not even have to change the channel. Is that a real hope or just a new series on the Sci Fi channel?
Still stuck in the 60’s eh old man?
re: “Still stuck in the 60’s” – No, more stuck in the study of history and social action and intercourse – and perhaps the course I valued in college the most was “Rhetoric in Political and Social Action”. Examples: Read Edward Gibbons, Machiavelli(no, not just the false quotes attributed to him by Rev. Cotton), . . . Always trained that civilized rhetoric and discussion may attack the idea – BUT NEVER THE PERSON.
Maybe this approach would better suit:
“In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” — Thomas Jefferson (1762-1826)
HOWEVER, if framed into the ’60’s, would far prefer this approach:
“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
I find the later more as value for societal advancement attacking others is just noise.
No, he’s moved into culture death and is embracing and assimilating into the new black homosexual pedophile gangster murderer culture. It’s so much better than what was. Finally, victory. The new quisine will be sautéed human fetuses with a cabernet sauce.
Cuisine…and I’m living with a slut and a moron.
Anonymous8:56am
Well I see ATS is still spewing his bitter tea. I left the 60’s about 50 years ago. It was not perfect even then. Interesting you should pick the 60’s because I was more than happy to leave that decade. It seems it still has it’s hooks in you. 3 major assassinations, Cuban missile crisis, Viet Nam war, riots on campus that make todays campus upsets tame by comparison, riots in the cities especially in the summers, the Draft, Hundreds dead weekly in Vietnam. Yeah I really yearn for that (that’s sarcasm ATS).
The breakdown of the family unit and the rejection of tradition, duty, and objective truth all gained momentum in the 1960s. The Left celebrates this legacy. They call it progress: fatherless homes, moral ambiguity, and a society unmoored from fixed values. They don’t mourn the collapse but embrace it as liberation.
Was there also a flood, a tsunami of drugs/ deadly narcotics that hit the streets?
No, Rose, he’s moved passed culture death into the new culture of homosexual pedophile gangsta. He’s moved on to what Barry dreams about everyday and here I am living with a slut and a moron.
We will not see the collapse of the left media. We will see them decline in size proportionate to those who actually want extreme left content.
The problem with what is being taught in journalism school is precisely what Lewis identified. Journalism is not a vanity project for billionaires. It must survive and thrive in the free market.
GEB,
Well said and I agree. We truly are fortunate to watch as MSM circles the drain of their own toilet. People are switching them off as no one believes their lies and gaslighting any more. As they lose more and more audience, ratings in free fall, it will all become to obvious they are no longer worth supporting, spending ads will go elsewhere there is a audience who actually watches worthy news. And it is not on NPR, 60 Minutes, CNN, MSNBC etc.
As a military brat whose sole source of live/current US news was Armed Forces Radio for my adolescent years, NPR (and the Morning Edition) upon return to the United States and college in DC was a good source of information and entertainment. For more than 10 years after graduation, my annual donation was in the “must” budget list. The articles and stories were a balanced discussion of issues. There usually are two sides to a story and even if you don’t agree with one of them, it deserves hearing.
As a forensic debate competitor, awareness of indoctrinating propaganda as the “information provider” across the world was incredibly easy to spot – having grown up with the American value of free speech and access to multiple sources (yes, I spent MANY hours at the microfiche reader preparing BOTH side arguments). Pravda was a classic dolt-target fest – along with the “5 year program” facts trying to glean usable debate evidence.
At one point, I ceased donations when I could no longer support an organization whose rhetoric had fallen into a blatantly obvious contextual rhetoric that was “negative” for those of an “opposition” opinion and “positive” for the cultural elite crowd who agreed from the “kumbaya” star chamber hand holding – IF the “oppositional” position was even presented. Too much of the high school popularity clique approach that had excluded (and physically abused) me – just waste.
The use of hatred and bigotry using race, sex, age, idealism, sexual identity “against” those who ARE CATEGORIZED into group(s) identified and classified by race, sex, age, idealism, sexual identity today seems far to similar to the occurrences where I had grown up, albeit this opinion was formed through the study of historical perspective of the 1930’s National Socialist German Workers Party and the 1917’ish evolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics propaganda machination. Example: The creation of the “Labor Camps” and/or “re-education” for those classified as being racists, bigots, socialist, or labeled with “non-compliant” doctrines. In the “compliant” cultures, nobody seemed to notice the ones promoting and attacking were actually the ones using racism, bigotry, or anti-doctrine indoctrination.
Government funding of propaganda of this nature should not be a burden of those persecuted using these methods.
Whew! That was some delusional rant you left there buddy.
ATS 10:20 AM—-Still spewing
From the Brookings Institute: “Sub-cost postage rates for magazines were first enacted in 1794. The people, it was argued, needed information about their government and the doings of the far flung peoples of America. Mail was a news-and-information medium.”
With news sources now scattered across radio, television, and internet, an all or nothing subsidy could never level the playing field when obscure algorithms and bots decide who gets the biggest megaphone.
If they take state and federal money then the programming should be limited to neutral topics of historical, entertainment and the arts. Once they crossed into bias, then they sealed their own fate.
I am sorry we are here. I guess they cannot help themselves. I used to watch and listen to PBS and NPR. I stopped after President Trump won the first time. I could set my watch by how soon the topic turned to a hit piece. 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1….Trump.
In 2025, there are no neutral topics.
Perhaps, but even on a “non-neutral” topic like anything Trump does, both sides can be presented.
E.M. – No government funding PERIOD.
While I share your views on the bad traits of the media today – it is not the biases that are the problem, it is that government is funding them.
When govenrment funds anything, that distorts our expression of our own values.
If we honestly prefer biased left wing social justice media – then that is what we should have – the market decides.
The market is each of us expressing our preferences.
In an afluent free market such as we have – nearly all preferences will be met – proportionate to the number of people with those preferences.
There is nothing inherently wrong with biased left wing nut social justice media.
There is everything wrong with it being protected from the discipline of the market by government.
Free markets are like the breakfast aisle in the grocery store – in the 50’s economists and those in govenrment thought the economies of scale would mean that a few companies would provide us with cornflakes at the lowest possible price through competition and the economies of scale.
What we have learned is that everyone does not want cheap cornflakes. Some people want organic fair trade gluten free Kashi and others want fruit loops.
Free markets deliver to each of us what we want at the lowest cost.
And remove the charitable donations as it is IRS charitable deduction. It’ll die or not. Actually NBC, ABC, CBS carry the same fare. I still watch “Father Brown”.
CPB can say and print whatever they choose but not with public money nor 501 3c status for donors, advertisements or no advertisements. 😂.
Katherine Maher believes not only that she is the intellectual force for all of Washington DC, but like AOC, thinks her critics merely want to date her. She runs one of the many publicly funded Democratic fiefdoms in DC.
Truly intellectual insight.
Yes NPR, FAFO actually has teeth with this President. As usual, Libs plan with emotion and execute like Keystone Cops. They will of course eventually realize they inspired the creation of a parallel economy that has made them irrelevant.
Now do the same with colleges and universities. And end government-backing of student loans.
Keystone cops… boy are you delusional, they spent trillions over four years without or minimal oversight, and you think they’re stupid. Check a mirror.
😁 Sure thing. ✔️ They should have t-shirts made that say: We spent trillions and all we got was Trump, MAGA, DOGE and a parallel economy.
Well played. 🤣🤣🤣
got trump? And still the dems are entrenched in the “system”. And those judges too.
Spending your last days screaming on the internet is hardly a good way to go.
Democrats and the Main Stream Mantra: Lie, cheat, steal, blame someone else, deny, deny, deny, and repeat!!!
Everything the Democrats touch turns to crap…
Democrat Motto: We’re not happy ‘till you’re not happy…
The Words Democrat and Hypocrite are Interchangeable…
The Democrats love their Double Standard…
NPR & PBS Believe that ALL Americans are stupid…
And reps are honest compared to dems? Better check American history. As for all Americans being stupid, they all congregate here.
You think the dems dont have a plan to bring down the USA, you really are naive. Wanted to say stupid, but decorum …
Well said professor. They did it to themselves. Support new, independent media.
Government sponsored Journalism in any form (Right or Left or Communists) has no place in a Constitutional Republic. If “reporting” cannot be fully independent from Government influence (money) than it is not Journalism it is Propaganda……They (Journalists and Editors and Program Directors) have proven that since the age of Trump…… We know!
anyone know of the BEST book on how the National Socialists rose to power, their use of censorship, intimidation, propaganda, etc
Because the Democrats are the CLOSET thing I have seen to the Fascist Germans of the 1930’s!
Well Except the Nazis loved their country….EVERY Democrat Voters appears to Hate their country and humanity!
@guyventner – let’s be honest the “new” democrat party has been taken over by hater’s from minority groups. They’ve embraced socialism, Marxism and communism. They don’t like the constitution and merit, they believe the the government should give them everything they want not what they’ve earned.
Truly intellectual insight. Now keep repeating that rep mantra.
You people just keep feeding each other truly bizarre factoids.
Think for your self if you can. But you can’t.
Okay, then hit us with some of that famed dem wisdom you apparently have, instead of just resorting to insults on every comment that leans slightly away from your cult.
-Rabble
Find it yourself. Factoids is not wisdom.
Not a dem silly anon.
Is the right a threat ? Certainly – though historically throughout the world right wing extremism has always been far less dangerous than that of the left. Hitler and Mousolini were socialists, as was Mao and Staling. and Pol Pot, Castro, Che.
Can you name any right wing regime ever that shed a fraction of the blood of even the smallest left wing nut one ?
You are right that people should think for themselves.
But you are self evidently very wrong about who does and who does not.
“ Can you name any right wing regime ever that shed a fraction of the blood of even the smallest left wing nut one ?”
The Catholic Church, the Evangelicals to name a few. The right has spilled more blood and angaged in more violence than the “left”. Btw. Hitler was a fascist and a huge right leaning figure. Nazism is a right leaning ideology. The supremacy of the race, is in line with the supremacy of Christianity as the bedrock of right-wing belief.
They think they’re rebels and are screaming I will not conform, nor ostracized. Probably the reason no one wants to be around them
Closet huh? Then you know nothing about history. Try FDR to start.
How would supporters on the Left feel if NPR had zero liberals on their staff and only right wing conservatives. Does anyone belief thy would be in favor of government spending for a right wing biased show? It is the same with universities. Some research has shown there is less than 10% conservatives on university staffs nationwide. And places like Harvard have zero. Where are the liberals clanging for equal representation in the educational institutions? Just another method to censor conservative voices without an official censure.
Ironic that a self-proclaimed Constitutional expert such as Turley agilely sidesteps the biggest issue with the Federal funding of NPR (as well as PBS ,and CPC itself). That issue is the complete and total lack of Constitutional authorization for the Federal government to fund, or in any way be involved with, such organizations and efforts. Anyone who claims to understand the Constitution, but fails to acknowledge this to clearly be the case, is an outright fraud.
Did you miss where Turley states that he is against state funding for the outlet? Or are you just being another contrarian weirdo?
As always you resort to insults old man. Me thinks yo got hit far too many times with a puck.
The Lord is waiting for you. Hear HIM knocking at your door.
That’s probably the FBI. As for HIM, you’re no different than an Islamist. Give you a gun and off you go to the next mall.
No, I’m knocking at HIS door and not coming through the windows. It means LAWFUL entry. Thieves come through broken windows and jump over the garden gate.
Ya know, Jesus could have given the most reasonable advice like wash your hands before eating and you’d turn it into something else.
He has a passport and visa in hand, too.
I will give you credit for knowing that my name is an homage to the great Golden Jet, but you still missed the point regarding Turley.
If Turley is the fraud that you say, why do you spend so much time reading and commenting on every column he writes? After subscribing to the WSJ for nearly 30 years, watching it turn into another left wing outlet and enduring its censorship of comments, I finally dropped my subscription. I thought I would miss it but I have found it liberating and frees up more of my time. If you find Turley so lacking you should try it and spare the rest of us you incessant ranting.
A fine essay, Professor, and good luck getting through to them in the LOC. Yes, I do mean that facetiously. They are not likely to benefit from your insights.
I do watch Masterpiece on their app. Opened it last night and boom – there was a screen asking people to contact their Congressional reps. Then after another ad for Viking (I think) there was another plea to preserve public media.
Hogwash.
They are taking this seriously, which they should. Let them compete in the marketplace without federal funds.
Let viking, and all other npr advertisers, know you will be boycotting them. There is some great stuff from public radio and tv, it will survive the fall of the npr matrix
Radio in general has become a noise box. It just screams noise of every possible disaster.