Recently, we discussed how National Public Radio CEO Katherine Maher made the conclusive case before Congress why funding for NPR should be terminated. Not to be outdone, Maher seemed to return to CBS to build her case further against her state-sponsored media outlet. Objecting to President Donald Trump’s criticism of NPR, Maher explained that “from my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out.” Precisely.
The portrayal of NPR as unbiased and balanced is laughingly absurd. Indeed, many of us objected to Maher’s selection after years of declining audiences and increasing criticism. Maher had a long record of far-left public statements against Republicans, Trump, and others.
This is the same CEO who attacked a respected senior editor who tried to get NPR to acknowledge its bias and restore greater balance on the staff.
Uri Berliner had watched NPR become an echo chamber for the far left with a virtual purging of all conservatives and Republicans from the newsroom. Berliner noted that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans.
Maher and NPR remained dismissive of such complaints. Maher attacked the award-winning Berliner for causing an “affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard.” She called his criticism “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
Berliner resigned, after noting how Maher’s “divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR” that he had been pointing out.
Many of us were watching the CBS interview given the years of alleged bias at NPR, including spiking stories like Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Little of that history appeared relevant for CBS even though it was the record cited by those seeking to cut off funding. Instead, host Margaret Brennan omitted much of the complaints and kept the questions general and relatively benign:
“The language in there says government funding of news media and this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence, and Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, that it’s fair, accurate, unbiased and nonpartisan. How do you respond to the implication that your news coverage is not?”
She then focused on issues like the use of woke language:
“The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term biological sex when discussing transgender issues. They apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term ‘anti-abortion rights’ to refer to activists.”
Maher was able to avoid the type of tough questions that she faced before Congress and claimed to be defending an independent media.
For critics, CBS interviewing NPR on media bias is itself bemusing. Host Margaret Brennan has been repeatedly criticized for bias from her handling of the presidential debate to her recent pushing of the “baby hoax.”
CBS is also under fire over its controversial editing of the interview with Kamala Harris to remove an embarrassing word salad response on Middle Eastern policy.
After the Maher interview, Scott Pelley produced another controversial interview. He featured Democratic lawyer Marc Elias as an example of lawyers being attacked by Trump. Yet, he never mentioned that Elias was not only a court-sanctioned lawyer but also a key figure in the infamous Russian dossier scandal. It somehow skipped Pelley’s mind, or he did not think viewers should know.
The greatest irony, however, came from Maher herself in reminding listeners how important it is to keep the government out of the media. She is running a state-supported media outlet and has been protected for years by Democratic allies.
In the end, NPR’s bias and contempt for the public over the years are well-documented. But this should not be the reason for cutting off such funding. Instead, the cutoff should be based on the principle that democracies do not selectively subsidize media outlets. We have long rejected the model of state media, and it is time we reaffirmed that principle. (I also believe there is ample reason to terminate funding for Voice of America, although that is a different conversation.)
Many defenders of NPR would be apoplectic if the government were to fund such competitors as Fox News. Indeed, Democratic members previously sought to pressure cable carriers to drop Fox, the most popular cable news channel. (For full disclosure, I am a Fox News legal analyst.)
Ironically, Fox News is more diverse than NPR and has more Democratic viewers than CNN or MSNBC.
The CBS interview should be the final capstone on this debate. It is time to heed Katherine Maher. It is time to keep “government out” of the media. It is time to end the funding of NPR.
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.”
Dear Prof Turley,
Ms Maher does sound a bit entitled and is easy to look at – probably had 30 or 35 dolls handed to her on a silver platter. NPR doesn’t need 250 #2 pencils to criticize Trump .. . they can make do with 4 or 5.
note. everybody has to tighten their belt. Except the Pentagon, they get a big fat raise. .. even DOGE can’t tell where that money goes.
The tragic irony, of course, is NPR would need to be evasive, deceptive or biased to report on the shortcomings of Donny Two-Dolls. Trump’s EOs practically write themselves.
It’s not so much NPR’s compulsive obsessive reporting on Trump that concerns me. .. as much as their blind support for [the alternative].
*two wrongs don’t make a right.
Donny Two-Dolls
Wait, so are you saying that you’re of the view that little girls really do need 30 dolls, and that American foreign policy, American manufacturing jobs and the families that depend on those jobs, and a level playing field in international trade should all be sacrificed so little Suzie can have her 30 dolls?
My big picture view.
As in a monopoly game, CPB/PBS/NPR ended up tilting and falling to one side. They consider themsrlves the deserving goos guys, I consider them as clearly the bad guys.
Having observed Elon exposing the tip of the iceberg, the money stealing ways of a ruling party, I think that the lesson is that less is more.
The less that our government does the less the opportunity for graft will be present. Keep it as simple as possible and no more complex than it needs to be. The result will be more useful work for every dollar ripped from the public. Trump is on the right track, the Left are insane, the judiciary is obstructionist, and Congress is out to lunch. Knock it off and get to work. Snd you Lefties – seek treatment before the damage is permanent.
“from my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out.”
It was Lenin who said: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. Well Vladimir, I believe we can safely amend that to Marxists.
Why yes Ms. Maher, you are absolutely correct. Therefore, in the interest of securing NPR’s 1st amendment rights, the government shall cease all public funding to your outlet. Furthermore, even if NPR should elect to overhaul their format and become a 100% objective source for the news, the government will remain committed to protecting NPR’s rights as previously stated.
You’re welcome.
It’s much much more than that. The charitable trust? The not for profit?
That is a true monster. Take the licenses for CPB and it’s subsidiaries. The foundation for public broadcasting? And it’s international…
Have FOX parent company set up a charitable trust, a foundation, and advertisers can donate to it and get an IRS deduction. They carry stories about minorities , too. That’s the charitable hook. Carry stories about cancer research, whatever.
Money laundering for political purposes. Bill and Hillary foundation…
I’m so done. Nothing but hardened criminals. Sure, Ms Maher, keep the government out but you’ll need a license, a specific license for radio and television.
“They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please.”
– Thomas Jefferson
_______________________
This discussion is moot.
Congress has no power to tax for or fund PBS and NPR.
_____________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To…collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;….
“The portrayal of NPR as unbiased and balanced is laughingly absurd.
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Professor, I believe “laughingly absurd” is ludicrous, which aptly describes National Public Radio CEO Katherine Maher’s depiction—ludicrous!
Unfortunately, in the completely twisted, nonsensical, view of Maher and her demented cohorts, “keeping the government out” entails maintaining funds and non-competitive benefits derived involuntarily from taxpayers, while depriving the taxpayers providing those funds and benefits from any voice in the viewpoints presented by the organization, or in how it is run. The solution is obvious to anyone with a functioning, rational, brain. Get the government completely out (meaning all funding, advocacy, preferential access, control, etc.) of all media services and products, as is required by the Constitution.
Loved the comment above about Maher shooting herself in both feet. Her views are laughable. I used to have long commutes and enjoyed listening to NPR. I have listened to it less and less over the years because it has turned further and further to the left and was no longer a resource for news. I rarely listen to it anymore and seldom view it on TV.
Both NPR and Harvard seem to view their organizations as entitled to government funds, and immediately sued to get “their” money.
Last weekend, there was an anti-semetic incident in BarStool Sports Bar in Philadelphia. Two personnel were fired and a Temple University student was suspended. That’s how it’s done, Harvard. It’s just not that hard.
True about Harvard. And it hurts me to say that (it’s my alma mater). But I keep getting defiant emails from its president Alan Garber, and realize he has no self-awareness, and is not doing Harvard any good. He doesn’t understand that it’s the public’s hard-earned money he feels entitled to.* He thinks it’s a birthright. His protestations just sound sanctimonious, to me at least, if not to most of the other email recipients.
*For example, in his email of April 21, 2025, he ridiculously suggests the government is trying to “impose unprecedented and improper control over the University” when it attaches conditions to taxpayer money. He apparently does not realize how ridiculous that sounds. He comes across as a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.
Because invoking the First Amendment appears to be popular these days, Maher likewise invokes it and characterizes NPR’s victimhood accordingly.
However, as I pointed out yesterday, the very congressional language that creates CPB directly conditions its creation upon the provision that CPB (which feeds NPR and PBS) ,
“(A) facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature;
Repeat,
“…with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/396
So…the issue is NOT that the government is interfering with NPR’s First Amendment rights to say what it wants; rather, the issue is that CPB’s charter and special classification status is premised upon its duty of “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.”
——————————
((p.s. minor point. Yesterday, an “anonymous” responded to my comment with a “Good, lin.” Right below that is my own additional comment, starting with “Yes.” BUT my additional comment was NOT intended as a response to anonymous; it was an addendum to my own original comment. The placement of my comment makes it appear that I was being cocky in a response to Anonymous. So, to Anonymous, thank you and sorry that my addendum was posted below yours.))
Lin,
Thank you for pointing out the law.
Lin, Maher’s was talking about Trump’s insistance that they use certain terms or words IS not strictly abiding to objectivity. That’s what Turley is leaving out of this conversation. The Trump administartion is demanding NPR use certain terms and words to “balance” the narrative against NPR’s left leaning news content. It’s left leaning because the majority of it’s donors and sponrs ARE left leaning. Conservatives weren’t “purged” from the organizaton as Turley falsely claims. They migrated to more conservative news sourse to buttress their ideals against reality which is not aligned with them the majority of the time.
to georgie and his other face gigi, like you aLways demand, SHOW US the evidence where Trump administration “DEMANDED” this. go again, georgie, show us.
I don’t want to listen to conservative stations. I don’t want to listen to liberal stations. I just want the news. NPR used to be able to deliver that. It no longer does. That’s my money they want and I don’t want to give it. There’s plenty of competition and they don’t need the protection of government $$ now (if they ever did).
Also, I wanted to point out that “court-sanctioned” makes it sound like Elias is approved by a court. The opposite occurred. He was sanctioned by the court (and lucky to retain his license based on his behavior and involvement with the Russian dossier mess).
‘Yet, he never mentioned that Elias was not only a court-sanctioned lawyer but also a key figure in the infamous Russian dossier scandal.”
“George” ……. As the willful broadcasting of leftist propaganda represents the overwhelming bulk of PBS/NPR content, it is simply make-believe on your part to claim that “conservative viewpoints” left voluntarily for greener pastures. They have become absolute champions of democrat orthodoxy, and virtually mirror the democrat-MSM. Your own total disconnect with reality is duly noted.
Succinctly, government should not have a press/speech outlet.
The special IRS category is for what reason, Lin?
Are there foreign donors?
IMHO they’re simply criminals and should be audited in addition.
William Wilson says:
May 6, 2025 at 2:44 AM
Many of us are not against helping to fund public broadcasting but with the support comes the obligation to provide both sides of the issues.
1% is to NPR 11.2 million.
8 million is used for public radio satellite connecting all public radio stations and 3 million is used for journalist protective gear and expanding national election coverage.
I don’t have it’s total budget nor donors list by dollar amount nor a bio for each foundation or entity.
I don’t have a rationale regarding its not for profit status except its advertisement free but noting its not donor free. The donors obviously have an agenda. They can pay for their satellites and STOP the tax write off for the radio license. Such a deal!
#. Lin do the research on this octopus. The CPB began 1967 when alternative radio or TV stations were rare. The CPB has become the COMMUNIST PUBLIC BROADCASTING. What a mess. NPR does maintenance on the satellite system with the 1% and the government uses it as the national alert system.
It’s sweetheart deal charitable communist trust has become state media. Shut it down and the taxes shrink to about 11.2 million dollars for maintenance of the satellite system but we did see Musk intervene with starlink when it failed during a national emergency in providing citizens with communication.
Shut down the COMMUNIST BROADCASTING SYSTEM and it’s charitable trust. I can’t do any further research due to a killer toothache.
Ms Maher is a communist with her little nest feathered.
@Anonymous
You still don’t seem to understand that hashtags don’t do anything whatsoever on this site; perhaps it’s a tick for you. You are not helping the sane with your over the top comments, either.
Yes, the modern left is most definitely a globalist regime when elites are saying the UN should be a global, unelected government. The rest of everything you say, and how you present it, really undermines your premise. Even though you present an opposing opinion, you are just as much a troll as any of the others, and it makes me think you are also, paid.
Therefore, henceforth, just ignoring you. Your gratuitous and useless hashtags make that very easy.
Under Maher’s view of the First Amendment, federal funding of NPR should have never started. She is a leftist intellectual lunatic…, if you will pardon the redundancy.
Yet, they seem adamant on sucking from the government teat as long as they possibly can. Like everything else from the radicals on the left, seems they can’t get their feet under them unless its being paid for by the gov, or a lunatic with way too much money (i.e. a guy whose ‘os’ is very ‘Sor’)
-Rabble
Did you hear about the news network started by the chairman of the Democratic Party that represents the richest Democrats and acts as a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party?
Oops mistaken, that was Roger Ailes of Fox News with the slogan “Fair & Balanced” news coverage!
#9. Faux news, MSNBC, CNN, even Newsmax, and of course, the big three nutworks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, are largely funded by big pharma. Nine commercials out of ten on those media outlets are paid snake oil medicine push outs with an agenda to entice you to find some pill or other that makes a blind man see, and lame man dance the Irish jig. The advent of the automobile destroyed the roaming horse and wagon version, now brought to you in full digitized HD glamor and musical accompaniment along with a teaspoon dose of political propaganda just as a side benefit.
#9. Faux news, MSNBC, CNN, even Newsmax, and of course, the big three nutworks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, are largely funded by big pharma. Nine commercials out of ten on those media outlets are paid snake oil medicine push outs with an agenda to entice you to find some pill or other that makes a blind man see, and lame man dance the Irish jig. The advent of the automobile destroyed the roaming horse and wagon version, now brought to you in full digitized HD glamor and musical accompaniment along with a teaspoon dose of political propaganda just as a side benefit.
Ted Turner and CNN.
Jeff Bezos and WaPo
Anonymous, Fox news leans to the right but it is not funded by my tax dollars. No one is saying that viewpoints should be prohibited but only that there should be no thumb on the scale supported by government funding. As usual your point is juvenile.
The bigger picture is that America is going bankrupt, and there is not enough political will in DC to stop it. The Dems don’t want to cut spending, and the razor-thin GOP majority in the House includes quite a few members who are only interested in the continued flow of goodies to their districts. The old saying is true that “conservatives” in DC only want to conserve the deficit spending that liberals have put in place.
The situation is dire. We have to borrow to pay interest on what we already borrowed. Nations cannot survive that kind of situation for long. Bankruptcies happen, at first slowly, then all at once. We are not prepared for the “all at once” that seems to be speeding toward us like a freight train.
https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/05/05/arrington-lawmakers-bloated-bureaucracy-national-debt/
# total agreement OMFK. A government that is sucking the population dry and any attempt to stop it will be met with murder, fire and destruction. Maxine Waters —> It’s all that we have!
True statement that DC doesn’t have the political will to stop it.
These are hardened criminals.
So Katherine Maher keeps stepping in it. Maybe she should just shut up. She probably would be better off. Seems to me Maher shoots herself in the foot and screams she is injured and then to prove her point, she shoots herself in the other foot.
She is probably going to get what she asked for from the government. Getting out, except, the government is taking the money away too. She gets what she asked, but not what she wanted. I wonder if she has another foot to shoot?
The Quiet Man,
At this point, after shooting herself in both feet, by her display of logic, she would shoot herself in the head.
She is a Mad Hatter.
“after shooting herself in both feet, by her display of logic, she would shoot herself in the head.”
Yes, please!
STOP! Let’s recall the shot to the back of the head gangland style by Luigi mangione.
Which gang?
#9. The gang that is making movies about Mangione and donating a fortune to bail his sorry backside out. And it’s not the Rotary Club…
#9. The gang that is making movies about Mangione and donating a fortune to bail his sorry backside out. And it’s not the Rotary Club…
It seems both parties are missing the point. Constitutionally-Subversive policies (illegal policies) by either party is not “American Politics” – not Liberal or Conservative but “Subversive”. This is missing from the debate.
For example: in 1919 women’s voting rights were essentially considered liberal or woke ideas back then. In 1920, after a constitutional-amendment was passed and Judicial Branch courts thoroughly studied the facts.
What may have been considered radical liberalism in 1919, was now constitutionally-conservative. A constitutional amendment was passed and court rulings were tested using “conservative” constitutional due process.
Fast forward to the 21st Century: a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all Americans are entitled to the same marriage rights and entitled to the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples. That ruling was reached by a “conservative” constitutional due process. This same court also expanded 2nd Amendment gun rights in 2008 with the “Heller” ruling.
One big mistake Democrats made was moving faster than constitutional due process on other issues – firing college professors for using the wrong pronouns or on unsettled constitutional rights. Actions not yet settled in the court system or through the constitutional-amendment process. There may be a legitimate argument about violating women’s rights and Title XI, if Bruce Jenner were allowed to compete on the women’s track team but transgender Americans also do have rights like any other person. The issue is when does one person’s rights violate another person, but transgender Americans do have rights.
Trump Republicans are also bypassing the “conservative” constitutional due process system. A president makes a promise to GOD to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its subordinate federal laws on January 20, 2025. Then the very same day attempts to illegally amend the 14th Amendment through an illegal Executive Order. Intentionally violating his sacred oath he promised less than 24 hours before. When asked if Trump was required to follow the U.S. Constitution, Trump said he didn’t know and would have to consult his attorneys.
Trump’s very “liberal” view of constitutional due process continues with Pam Bondi (member of a legal bar association) intentionally defying U.S. Supreme Court rulings and defying federal law.
Criticize any news outlet (including NPR) for not following constitutional due process but don’t confuse politics for constitutionally-subversive practices used by foreign nations!
Much of what NPR reports is exposing “subversive” policies that violate the U.S. Constitution – that’s not liberal or conservative that’s a foreign model of government. NPR shouldn’t be denounced for promoting the American system of constitutional due process!
Blah, blah, blah., blah. NPR and PBS are leftwing cesspools. You know it. I know it. Everybody but braindead leftists knows it. Let them live or die by their own advertising/fund-raising. Like every other media outlet.
They’re criminals wanting their share of the loot and booty.
You are conflating two definitions of “conservative”. The original dictionary meaning pertains to reluctance to embrace change. In US politics, that morphed into reluctance to embrace change in Federal governance beyond what is explicitly articulated in the Constitution. By the first definition, anyone embracing the overall political views of Democrats of the era ranging from (for the sake of argument) Lyndon Johnson through Bill Clinton could aptly be described today as “conservative”, which very much contradicts the second definition. The bottom line is that most people who are familiar enough with the subject matter to credibly use these terms understand the difference, and if any large number of people attempted to switch to your terminology, that would result in far more additional confusion than it would clarity.
No, NPR most certainly does not provide the service of “exposing subversive policies that violate the U.S. Constitution.” They provide disinformation and agitation, fomenting discontent. While you join them in bloviating about the sanctity of the Fourteenth-Amendment (1868), you fail to notice a specific date (context) in which the amendment was literally brought forth, that being the Civil War, in which the status and future of blacks, formerly slaves, was contemporaneously in question: it was to these very particular “citizens” (born and naturalized in the United States, where they resided) that due process and equal protection was given.
The judges, blocking deportations via the Alien Enemies Act (1798)—predatory incursion/invasion, of which the onslaught of the last four years proves—are acting subversively themselves, overreaching the scope of their offices, and they need to be denounced along with NPR’s aiding abetting.
Are those on the left as unaware of the reality around them or, surely, this must be a ruse – akin to a possum playing dead or a chameleon changing color – where the opponent is deceived into believing a vulnerability that is not there? At this point, I am finding difficulty in believing the obvious yet they seem so genuine.
WTF???? You sure do try hard to sound intelligent, but fail.
You are determined to go down on the SS TDS, aren’t you?
whimsicalmama,
Oh, it is not that they are unaware. They are just that delusional. They truly believe like any cult member. This is why all the rest of us sane and normal people just walk away. It is also the reason why all the sane, normal, traditional Democrats want these wackos out of their party.
“it is not that they are unaware. They are just that delusional. They truly believe like any cult member. ”
Exactly. At some level Jim Jones’ disciples had to have been aware that they were being deceived. But they drank the Kool-Aid as instructed, anyway…
@whimsicalmama
They are aware of a reality that has become, through generational wealth, is entirely incompatible with your average, innocent, human. That the modern left purports to support humanitarian causes beyond continued servitude is the biggest laugh yet. These are not serious people, and it is why they have a b*ner for hurting Elon: he is richer and better connected than all of them, and that does not compute in their world, where the modern left are unquestionably the royalty and the ‘stars’, how dare anyone steal their power or shine?
It’s absurd and pathetic, and thank God we still live in a free country. Our Western European neighbors are not so fortunate.
A cursory look at how much funding NPR receives from the government reveals “NPR receives less than 1% of its funding from government sources,” but like everything related to the DC money laundering system, the truth is obscured. You need to be Sherlock Holmes with a CPA to “follow the money”.
OT
I can’t imagine how this will turn out other than it is another dent in Roberts’ reputation and the reputation of the entire judiciary.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/boom-stephen-millers-america-first-legal-drops-bombshell
Roberts isn’t big enough for his chair on the Court.
Not big enough? Boy, you really don’t understand the role of the Chief Justice.
There shouldn’t even be a position such as “Chief Justice.” The Supreme Court is meant to be a panel of equally-viable and equally-adjudicated judges. Now, if one of them wanted to be the head of presenting and presiding certain cases, rotating, i would see that as allowable. However, placing one judge above the rest in a position of authority seems to undermine the whole concept of “impartial, blind justice”, does it not?
-Rabble
“There shouldn’t even be a position such as “Chief Justice.””
Exactly. That “position” reflects a custom adopted by the Court over time, and has no foundation in that Constitution or any Constitutionally-compliant law.
The Supreme Court must have found secession not prohibited and fully constitutional in 1860.
The Supreme Court must have found “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s Civil War and “Reign of Terror” unconstitutional and struck them down with Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession.
America must not have traversed the “American Inflection Point,” and America and Americans must have retained their freedom, and reprehensible slavery must have been abrogated legislatively and constitutionally.
Alas, it was not to be.
Lincoln put America on the Progressive course to the communism it finds itself embedded in today.
“another dent in Roberts’ reputation and the reputation of the entire judiciary.”
The dents are, and will continue to be, apparent enough, but in this particular case, I suspect there might be an issue about “standing”.
Well if it only 1%, their dependable viewership should be willing to pony up the money.
I don’t think it is the money as much as the imprimatur of that “official government seal of approval” that they use as a shield against their covert agenda-driven productions being exposed.
The Quiet Man,
That is the problem. Their viewership is in a decline. Ever since they embraced wokeism, gone full on leftist, their viewership has tanked. Even sane, normal, traditional Democrats find their level of wokeism reporting nauseating and are switching off.
@Upstate
This is true. Younger people certainly aren’t tuning in. And they have gone so far beyond their traditional audience with their madness – there is no other word for it than madness. These people are not well. Everyone is beginning to see it.
James,
I find their level of thinking they are entitled to whatever money to be obscene, be it from NPR to Harvard to all those other dead beat programs.
Much like the loyal Nazis at Castle Itter in Austria, these last woke cultists will not admit defeat of their ideology.
You mean forensic accountant, not a CPA, a public accountant.
Pedantic much? Everyone understood his meaning.
Translate 1% into an actual dollar amount and then give the stats on total budget and a list of donors and amount. List employees in addition and their salaries.
Thank you
^^^ note to self: I did.
Hers isn’t even particularly master’s level doublespeak: ‘The government shouldn’t be involved, therefore the government should fund is.’
Maher is either a liar or delusional, it’s one or both, and her statements are so patently absurd on their face it beggars belief. Maybe she isn’t an avowed Marxist, but she utilizes the playbook anyway, and either imagines herself superior or that we are all incredibly stupid. Again, one or both.
This mentality no longer merely borders on insanity.
*fund us
You gotta give credit where credit is due. For once Maher is right!
Read the room, Mx. Maher. Liberals can’t extort money out of taxpayers anymore.
A question: were NPR and PBS originally intended to bring actual information and educational programming to areas that were unserved or was it always intended to become ubiquitous and then be used as a propaganda machine?
Either way, I think it is time to get our tax money out of the broadcasting business with one exception: streaming sites for the conducting of government business. Like CSPAN but more thorough
Sigh, Oh Turley. Why do you make disingenious arguments. It seems Maher is more honest than Turley.
“And so we’ve had a whole host of conservative voices on air. Of late, we’ve been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would like to see more people accept those invitations. It’s hard for us to be able to say we can speak for everyone when folks won’t join us. ”—Maher.
“Folks won’t join us”…, That’s why. Because Trump has been bashing NPR and PBS about being so leftist that any conservative invited to express their perspective on news items or issues are not willing to participate for fear of being called out as RINOs or traitors. It’s not NPR that is “purging” Republicans or conservatives, it’s Trump making it risky for them to appear.
Turley left out this gem from the Maher interview,
“The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term biological sex when discussing transgender issues, they apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term anti-abortion rights to refer to activists. So when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being?
KATHERINE MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence, and, as I said–
MARGARET BRENNAN: To control it?
KATHERINE MAHER: To control it. And I think that that’s- that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom, and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct that division between the state and independent media.”
Tulrey completely avoided the context of Maher’s statement. Because she was talking about the Trump administration demanding NPR use certain terms and wording just like it demanded the AP to use “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.” Turley clearly was opposed to Trump’s demand, It’s the same thing with NPR. The only reason Trump is threatening to cut funding is because they won’t bend to Trump’s demands. Turley completely misses the point and it appears to be either deliberate or just ignorant. Trump is bullying media to accept HIS reality and if they don’t accept it they get punished. He did the same thing with the recent interview where demanded the reported agree with HIS view before moving on to an other subject.
Turley also leaves out important facts like
The Public Broadcasting Act’s explicit barriers against any government official interfering with the organizations which allowed them to maintain their independence. NPR seems more left leaning because more Conservatives chose to get their news from more conservative news organizations, specifically Fox News. They weren’t “purged” they were led away from NPR by Fox News peddling narratives that made conservatives more comfortable in their world views against the reality that didn’t.
Hog wash. When will you democrats learn that misrepresenting facts as your “truths” is destroying the faith in the media in general? Anyone who is afraid of being called a rino is being purged from the party, and rightfully so. The center line is being moved to the right, putting it back to it’s rightful place. Cry harder that you are losing your propaganda vehicles.
Turley is misrepresenting the facts. He deliberately created a narrative that is NOT what the interview he cites says.
When Maher said, “Keep the government out,” she meant the Trump administration. Because they demand that NPR use certain words or terms more often in their programming, it’s the same thing they wanted the AP to do when they chose not to use the term “Gulf of America.” When they refused, Trump sought to punish them by banning them from the White House press room. Turley already said he opposed this without much elaboration because he doesn’t want to upset his MAGA readers.
NPR is being targeted because they refused to be coerced or bulllied by the Trump administration to say certain words or phrases.
What Turley isn’t saying is that the Public Broacasting Act does NOT allow any government official to do what Trump demands of NPR or PBS.
Ҥ 398. Federal interference or control
(a) Prohibition—Nothing contained in this part shall be deemed (1) to amend any other provision of, or requirement under, this chapter; or (2) except to the extent authorized in subsection (b) of this section, to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over public telecommunications, or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors, or over the charter or bylaws of the Corporation, or over the curriculum, program of instruction, or personnel of any educational institution, school system, or public telecommunications entity.”
https://cpb.org/aboutpb/act
NPR and PBS fall under this Act. and there are a LOT or rules and regulations stating that even political affiliation is not to be used to influence the content on those organizations.
Trump, as usual, is lying about NPR and PBS and Turley is happily enabling the lie.
NPR’s lean to the left is not due to any “purge” of conservatives or Republicans. NPR’s Maher specifically stated they invite coservatives and even asked Trump officials to the table to discuss their point of view and they REFUSE to do so because it will undermine Trump’s narrative and current smearing of the organizaion as partisan and leftist. Conservatives ARE being given every opportunity to express their views on NPR and they are refusing, choosing instead to play wounded victim to some leftist agenda that does not exist.
Turley is shamelessly manipulating statements and context to give the false impression that NPR is deliberately “purging” conservatives and discriminating against their views just so his MAGA readers can get their daily dose or anti-leftist rage and animosity because they are too dumb to really research the issue on their own. They prefer to be told what the issue is instead of exercising some healthy skepticism and do some research into the issue. It’s much easier to bash and bad-mouth than to seek to understand the issue beyond Turley’s disingenious narrative because it may turn out to be that Turley is not being completely honest.
#9. Talk about creating narratives..?
#9. Talk about creating narratives..?
goodbye george …
As usual you try to see how much you can throw at the wall to see if any of it will stick.
You presume that Maher is being truthful about inviting other voices.
You also presume that everything is fine if left wing nut NPR interviews politicians on both sides.
While many here including Turley make this about NPR’s very real bias that is so broad they – and you do not even perceive it. That is not the issue. That is just what makes it clear to all that government should not be funding a view point.
That in fact violates the first amendment, as well as the constitution itself.
It is irrelevant that NPR is a cesspool of left wing loonies. Even if it were a sinecure for the extreme right – it still should not be funded by government. Even if it returned magically to its slightly left of center norm for most of its history – it still should not be funded by government.
The values of the nation are determined by the people – OUTSIDE of government. As we decided them – we the people, impose them on GOVERNMENT. Not the other way arround.
We elect presidents and congressmen to transform government. NOT to transform the american people.
Government has no business at all in deciding what our values are. We determine that on our own and then We the people through the political process impose those values on GOVERNMENT.
PBS and NPR are free to function however they wish. Turley and the rest of us can jeer at their out of touch left wing ideology. But so long as they are not entangled in government they can direct themselves as they please.
John Say,
Well said. The government should not be funding a dime to any news organization. Even less so for obvious slant and bias. If they want funding, they should be able to rely on their listeners to donate the money to keep paying them.
John Say, you presume Turley is being truthful and I just showed he’s not.
“You presume that Maher is being truthful about inviting other voices.
You also presume that everything is fine if left wing nut NPR interviews politicians on both sides.”
You’re dismissing her remarks as a lie because Turley misrepresented her comments first and because Turley wouldn’t stoop down that level. Turley has lied before and he is on record misrepresenting the facts in the past.
What you are not addressing is th fact that conservatives even Trump officials are refusing those invitations. By doing so and Turley omitting that fact leaves intact the false narrative that NPR is biased or not objective. No conservative or Trump offical will accept such an invitation knowing they will face the ire of Trump and wouldn’t dare contradict him on his false narrative.
NPR is left wing because the majority of their donors and supporters are left leaning. Conservatives were not “purged” from the organization. They chose to get their news from more conservative sources like Fox News that validate their beliefs and ideas that reality cannot support. They are choosing to stay in their information silo to avoid the reality that some of their ideas or views are plain wrong or silly. The same can be said of the left, but NPR is a least trying to get both views. It’s the “governemnt funding” that is bad-mouthed as the problem because the right wrongly believes NPR is spreading government leftist propaganda or biases. The Public Broadcasting Act specifcially prohibits government interference. It’s Trump who is demanding NPR to use certain words or phrases because it thinks NPR is being unfairly biased. Trump lies and when he doesn’t get his way he threatens and punishes until he gets what he wants. That kind of bullying is specifically what the Act prohibits and Turley is ignoring or oblivious to that fact.
“Government has no business at all in deciding what our values are.”
True.
Ironically it’s Republicans and Conservatives who LOVE to decide what values everyone should follow and use governemt to enforce it. Family values. Parental rights. Book bans because they don’t agree on other’s values. etc. I don’t see you criticizing them for those actions. Could it be you agree as long as they are not leftists? It seems to be the case for you.
John Say,
Here’s what Turley is leaving out.
“MARGARET BRENNAN: So, that was the executive order. Then we went, we looked at the White House talking points and what they’re putting on social media. They’re a lot more about you than you. And on NPR, they were saying things like a July 2022 editor’s note that said the declaration of independence had offensive language against Native Americans. We checked and the word savages is used. The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term biological sex when discussing transgender issues, they apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term anti-abortion rights to refer to activists. So when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being?
KATHERINE MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence, and, as I said–
MARGARET BRENNAN: To control it?
KATHERINE MAHER: To control it. And I think that that’s- that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom, and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct that division between the state and independent media.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That was the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 set it up as a private corporation to give protection from influence and control. I would assume that’s also from the White House, influence and control.
KATHERINE MAHER: that’s right. And President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law, creating the Public Broadcasting Act and creating the system that we all operate within, was was very note he noted in his remarks, upon signing that speech, was that it does require a greater wisdom, and that’s why we have a two year advance appropriation is to is to insulate both of our work from political interference. I think that that is critical that Americans understand that public broadcasting is meant to be independent, so that we can serve the public interest, regardless of whatever administration is in office or whatever Congress whims are.
PAULA KERGER: And the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was set up as a private corporation with that same intent.”
Clearlly Turley is not being honest about the issue. Maher is being truthful. Trump is not.
John Say, you’re not saying Maher’s statements are wrong or lies. You’re assuming she’s wrong because of what Turley said and the narrative that he’s been peddling as the truth. Turns out it’s not true and he’s deliberately misquoting and putting things out of context.
The narrative being peddled by Trump and Turley is designed to create distrust of NPR and the law that helped create it just because the government funds a tiny amount of it.
It’s also about the rural broacasters that depend on as they are sometimes the only source of information and programming available. They are objective in their programing. It’s the claim that they are not and that it’s bad because conservative ideas or viewpoints are not presented equally depite the fact that Maher pointed out they do invite them to present their views and ideas. It’s their refusal to participate because it would contradict Trump’s claims and narrative that is the problem, not because NPR is “purging” them from the organization.
Turley says no Repubicans are in the organization but the PBA stricely forbids political affiliation as consideration for hiring or determining content.
George says, “NPR seems more left leaning because more Conservatives chose to get their news from more conservative news organizations, specifically Fox News.”
(1) NPR does not “SEEM” more left-leaning–it has been consistently rated as same by the independent sources that rate networks.
(2) Conservatives may move on to other sources of news because NPR/CPB have not lived up to their broadcasting requirements of “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs…” as I had pointed out.-
Lin,
Well said. I use to listen to NPR from first thing in the morning till dinner time. I would even listen out in the fields. Sure, they had their slant and bias but you could ignore that and still get the news, interesting articles even “driveway moments.” Then 2016 happened, they went all in advocacy, hard leftist wokeism to the point it was over the top nauseating. Was taking my parents to the airport one morning, Morning Edition was on. After a full hour, my father said “None of that was news.” One report was about how exercise was a gateway to white supremacy. We have a obesity epidemic in America and they dont want you to exercise? Of course people are going to switch them off. What they are reporting on is garbage. Only an idiot would subject themselves to that kind of nonsense.
LIn, the strict adherence to objectivity and balance is dependent on their audience. NPR has invited conservatives and Republicans to express their views on an issue. Because they refuse does not mean NPR is not being objective. Accepting any invitation from NPR would negate their argument that NPR is not being objective. It’s not NPR’s actions that are the issue. It’s balky Republicans and conservatives who are fearful of being labeled RINO’s and/ tratiors. MAGA is pretty good at that.
WOW! georgie believes that, as a condition for special status and funding “adherence to objectivity and balance is dependent on the audience!!!!!!” what a clown!
LIn, well duh, it’s been rated by independent organizations as left leaning BECAUSE conservatives over the years have been migrating to news sources that better align with their views. That means a more left leaning NPR as a result. It’s not because they “purged” conservatives like Turley claims.
You should check out this and see why that makes sense.
https://www.aaup.org/article/rethinking-plight-conservatives-higher-education
George: Well, duh. The article that you cite was written and published in 2012 and doesn’t quite represent what you imply.
Indeed, for a more current understanding of where the author stands today, you will see that the author publishes https://politicalsciencenow.com/why-college-students-drift-left-the-stability-of-political-identity-and-relative-malleability-of-issue-positions-among-college-students/ In a nutshell, students at colleges where fellow students and professors are liberal are malleable.
And how ’bout this more RECENT quote from him, “Regarding teaching, conservative students often have their views challenged by leftist professors, while liberal students rarely face corresponding challenges from the right. Because left-leaning students rarely have professors who provide them with thoughtful conservative perspectives, their education is often incomplete. Since leftist faculty are especially dominant at elite colleges and universities, we are particularly concerned about how a one-sided worldview might arrest the intellectual development of America’s best students.”
By 2025, the author, now
“were NPR and PBS originally intended to bring actual information and educational programming to areas that were unserved or was it always intended to become ubiquitous and then be used as a propaganda machine?”
This question could only be answered superficially, based on statements made when the organizations were founded. I’m pretty sure those statements endorsed the promise you stated first. In which case the real question would be about whether those statements were honest. The only real guidance I can give you on that is to consider that it was politicians making them…
Maher is trying to make the argument they need to keep the government out of NPR while demanding the government continues to fund them? The fun part is NPR continues to prove to everyone how irrelevant they really are. Their audience continues to grow smaller, their supporters continues to grow smaller, their sponsorship continues to grow smaller. The joke used to be “NPR and all ten of it’s listeners . . .” is soon going to be a reality.
Her lack of self and situational awareness is hilarious. She’s a bug girl now, time for her to swim on her own without taxpayer money.
UpstateFarmer,
“Maher is trying to make the argument they need to keep the government out of NPR while demanding the government continues to fund them?”
Aparently you didn’t read the interview cited by Turley.
That’s not what Maher is saying. Turley is putting things out of context to imply that Maher is being contradictory.
Maher was talking about the Trump administration (government) demanding NPR use certain words or phrases to describe some conservative views. “Keeping government out” is keeping the Trump administration from controlling the narrative for NPR which is not allowed under the Public Broadcasting Act which NPR operates under. Turley conveniently left that part out. Because NPR refused to abide by Trump’s demands he is seeking to smear and punish NPR for not doing what he wanted them to do by seeking to cut off their funding and smear them as leftists.
Turley is enabling that false narrative either because of ignorance or neivette.
Upstate and George: apologies for stepping in here, but I was going to address this elsewhere until I read this.
George apparently does not understand (1) the premise of CPB’s status and conditions; (2) the Congressional right to cease any contribution for violations of (1). (3) the meaning of “interpret.”
George, for one who always demands “evidence,” what you repeatedly rely on is Maher’s interview statement, to wit
(taken from your own comment):
“MARGARET BRENNAN: The White House faults your editors for……when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being?
KATHERINE MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence, and, as I said–
MARGARET BRENNAN: To control it?
KATHERINE MAHER: To control it. ”
George: Please note that Brennan asked how Maher “interpreted” the White House’s faulting of editors. Maher’s response is,
“Well, I interpret the intention of this being…”
George: do “specific editorial criticisms like that” (Brennan’s words about the WH “faulting editors”) constitute either First Amendment censorship or an “abridgement” of speech???????
Lin,
What did conservatives gripe about he Biden administration using the same kind of ‘criticism’ against Facebook and Twitter to ‘demand’ they say things differently? That it was government coercion and censoship. Right?
They argued it amounted to censorship by proxy and pressuring social media to change narratives is an infringement on free speech. Here we see the same thing except it’s the Trump administration criticizing and demanding certain words be included in their content. PBS is an independent agency funded by some government funds.
If the Biden administration’s criticsims of Social Media not portraying the narrative they want is considered censorship by conservatives then Trump’s criticsim of NPR not using certain words and wanting them use them or be threatened with funding cuts and smears is also censorship.
George: Well thank you for stepping on your own foot and proving my point, since I am in a hurry. You conclude that neither of your “created” scenarios amount to government censorship.
Unfortunately, comprehension failed you. Yugely, in that gov’t interference with private social media companies is not the same as a gov’t/congressionally-CREATED entity (CPB) expressly mandated to provide and ensure “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs.”
What escapes you is that CPB and NPR can continue with their Left-leaning propaganda all they want, –but not with an implicit federal nod of approval.
No one is trying to shutter them, George. It’s more like separation of church and state, n’est ce pas?
“George, for one who always demands “evidence,”
George, for one who always demands ‘evidence,’ is a time-waster. He doesn’t know the difference between evidence and opinion. No matter how absurd the claim, if it comes from the left, George will call it ‘evidence’ and demand evidence to dispute it. When presented with exacting evidence, he denies it; when it’s proven correct, he forgets it.
He’s a troll with bad intentions. That became obvious to the most dense when we discussed pederasty and pedophilia. Despite picture book examples, clear explanations of how libraries operate, and the issue of parental rights, he defended every position that caused child abuse and infringed on parental authority.
This disgusting behavior of George has led many to say he should stay far away from schools and children.”
S. Meyer,
Well said and spot on!
Sure sign Allan spanks it to child porn.^^
You don’t sound clever; you sound diseased. Every time you open your mouth, you confirm you belong to the filth you throw. Try washing your mind before speaking again.
Try staying off the sauce.
S. Meyer,
It is the sick and twisted mentality of woke leftists. They think they are smart. Witty. Or clever. They are not. They display for all to see their lower elevator IQs and even lower moral standards if they have any at all.
S. Meyer, everyone here has demanded evidence at one time or another including you. What you have demonstrated is that you cannot follow an conversation or discussion and tend to dismiss evidence put in front of you because you cannot refute it. You rarely provide “exacting evidence”. you provide ad hominem attacks and unsults.
@George Svelaz: No one has been more boring in their relentless quest for ‘proof’ than you when the evidence is in your face. You are a liar, and you deny the evidence when provided. One time, I quoted the CDC twice and sent you the link twice, only to hear from you that the evidence was never sent. Finally, when asked for proof of my interpretation of the CDC, I sent a response containing the other four or five responses. You did not reply; when I asked why, you didn’t respond to the final proof.
The same happened when we talked about pederasty and pedophilia along with your desire for grade school children to have books about masturbation and fellacio in their libraries. Your answers were so outlandish that it appeared to many that you were a danger to children and should stay away from the schools.
You are a disgrace to your family name.
Lin,
As usual, I just scroll past the slow and dumb one’s comments are they are not worth reading unless needed in context to a thought worthy comment by others like yourself. Again, thank you for using your superior intellect and knowledge of the law to put the slow and dumb one in his place.
Lin, and….? She interpreted correctly. Trump has a nasty habit of bullying reporters and commentators into taking their view and insisting it’s the correct view. If there is any pushback or contradictory evidence it’s suddenly a bias against the conservative view and it’s used as justification for retaliatory punishment like threatening to cut off funds and smear the organization until they capitulate. This has been Trump’s MO for a long time.
I’m sure you know how to follow a conversation and it’s context. By leaving out the whole conversation and focusing only on parts that make your argument look better is disingenious. Why not post the entire conversation like I did?
“The White House faults your editors for avoiding the term biological sex when discussing transgender issues, they apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term anti-abortion rights to refer to activists. So when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being?
KATHERINE MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence, and, as I said–
MARGARET BRENNAN: To control it?
KATHERINE MAHER: To control it. And I think that that’s- that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom, and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct that division between the state and independent media.”
Maher goes on to further explain why she interprets it that way and she backs it up with facts. Her interpretation is correct in this case. She explains why it’s a first amendment issue. When governemnt (Trump administartion) wants NPR to use certain words it violates the explicit prohibitions on interference in the Public broadcasting Act.
“398. Federal interference or control
(a) Prohibition—Nothing contained in this part shall be deemed (1) to amend any other provision of, or requirement under, this chapter; or (2) except to the extent authorized in subsection (b) of this section, to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over public telecommunications, or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors, or over the charter or bylaws of the Corporation, or over the curriculum, program of instruction, or personnel of any educational institution, school system, or public telecommunications entity.”
…”c) Control over content or distribution of programs—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services, or over the curriculum or program of instruction of any educational institution or school system.”
They are being objective, Trump wants to make them say things conservatives want to be said. Thru the threat of funding cuts and coercion until they capitulate. If they don’t, they get the smear treatment and label of “extreme leftists”.