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“The language in there says government funding of news media and this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence, and Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, that it’s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.”
National Public Radio CEO Katherine Maher may be a presstitute, but she’s one of the best presstitutes in the entire presstitution industry.
Maher doesn’t need money from the Federal government because PBS and NPR gets most of their funding from the “donor class”. They write off these “donations” and get to control the “narrative” on “public media” as a bonus. I’m sure Maher get’s a big big “bonus” from the “donor class” too. If I were at the hearing, I’d ask Maher to provide a list of how much funding is received from small donors vice those in the “donor class”. I’m sure it would be “enlightening”.
“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;….
Who pays for presidential libraries?
The federal government claims to own Presidential records. Therefore, it is appropriate that it pay for them.
Last time I looked that up,, it was friends & business.
Should there be state-sponsored libraries?
Libraries are paid for by local municipalities through taxes approved by voters. Although not a core government function, libraries can be justified as a means of increasing literacy, and there is public approval of the funding. That is not the same thing as using Congressional funds to subsidize, and thus favor, a highly-politicized national media organization with ties to one of the parties.
For most of US history libraries were privately funding.
No increasing literacy is not a justification for libraries.
While it is unlikely that we will get rid of public library finding anytime soon – it is NOT a consequential example of government sticking its nose where it does not belong.
Still – we should end public funding of libraries – for many many reasons.
Just one of those would be – government state local or federal should not be deciding whether we need libraries, what libraires should do, or how they should work.
We are at the moment in the midst of a transformation within the media.
With near certainty the way we get news will be radically different in 10 years.
When govenrment funds things those transformations DO NOT TAKE PLACE.
This is true of libraries too. What should the library of the future be ?
Why does govenrment have any role in determining that ?
Get government out of funding libraries and libraries will transform in the most effective possible ways.
Involve government and change will not happen or proceed as slow as molasses at 100 times the cost.
Public funding of libraries is not the hill most libertarians want to die on.
But we will be happy to point out the stupidity of public funding of libraries – or most anything else.
BTW the fact that government stiffles changes is jjust ONE of many arguments against government funding libraries or anything else that can be done without govenrment.
Public funding was to guarantee non-biased reporting. That is clearly not the case
“Get government out of funding libraries and libraries will transform in the most effective possible ways. ”
Agree. Not a high-priority issue in the context of current times, but valid. Libraries in this neck of the woods are county-funded models of inefficiency and under-utilization. I suppose one characteristic could be considered a positive, however. Those libraries do provide a venue for politicians’ relatives and other favorites to be employed in jobs where their incompetence and indolence causes relatively little harm…
Should there be a state-sponsored government?
Government is not “sponsored” by “the State”. The government is the State in action.
Should there be a state-sponsored military?
The military is an arm of the government.
Should there be state-sponsored elections?
elections determine the rulers of the government.
Who pays the judges?
public officials.
Given that both NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Station) were initiated as a public service and/or public education service, they bear a deceptive legacy. Since they have squandered representative public views and support insane biases, and since they are no longer government affiliated, they should be required to change their name. The new name can be similar…like Network Perspective Radio Broadcasting (NPRB) and Private & Public Broadcasting Station (PPBS)…similar enough to recognize the initials, but with enough name change to stop deceiving people into believing theirs is the “nationally sanctioned opinions.” Not hardly!
to paraphrase Linda Richman: “The Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve… discuss”
The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional.
Congress has no enumerated power to regulate banking, interest rates, employment, or prices, per Article 1, Section 8, and no legislation involving these aspects is necessary and proper.
In fact, banking, interest rates, employment, and prices are conducted and set by private property enterprises in the free markets of the private sector, having no relationship whatsoever to the conduct of government.
“Network Perspective Radio Broadcasting (NPRB) and Private & Public Broadcasting Station (PPBS)”
I suggest the alternatives: “Neo-marxist Propaganda Radio” and “Prolitariat Bimbocasting Station”…
“They apparently want you to use the term pro-life and faulted your use of the term ‘anti-abortion rights’ to refer to activists.”
There is something very wrong when it’s intellectual to discuss if fire is alive but you’re a knuckle dragger if you bring up the status of a fetus.
DID YOU SAY, “FETUS?”
ABORTION IS NOT “MY BODY, MY CHOICE.”
IT’S THE FETUS’S BODY AND THE FETUS’S CHOICE, AND THE FETUS MAKES ITS CHOICE CLEAR BY PERSISTING.
And here are some bonus scientific facts that prove it’s not just an organ or part of the mother.
During its early stages of development, the placenta of the unborn child secretes neurokinin B-containing phosphocoline molecules, which protects the child from detection by its mother’s immune system, because it can be interpreted as a foreign body and is subject to attack. This is because the fetus is of non-identical genetic material to the mother due to their different DNA.
Also present in the unborn child are lymphocytic suppressor cells which stop interleukin 2 (IL2) cells from signalling cytotoxic T cells to kill the child. The purpose of IL2 cells is to distinguish between self and non-self (parts of the mother and foreign parts). The lymphocytic cells would not need to inhibit the response of the cytotoxic T cells if the IL2 did not signal the feuts as a foreign body. This would not occur if it was one of her own organs because the response would not be initiated.
An organ does not have its own organs. The fetal heartbeat begins at around 22 days after fertilisation as I said earlier, and brain waves are detected at about six weeks, which means the unborn child has a heart and a brain. At seven weeks, all other organs are present, although not fully developed, which would mean not only did the mother have an organ with different DNA to her, but this organ also has its own organ systems, and so the mother has an extra heart, brain, stomach, liver, etc.
– Emma Greenland-Broadsmith
Jonathan wrote that Scott Pelly left out some really disagreeable stuff in the Mark Elias interview, perhaps to keep the viewers from knowing. No disagreement. Some, but not all, were likely the liberal target audience. What about those who did know and took offense at being played for chumps? If the exodus from drive by media makes the Nielsen ratings sag enough, do the hacked off shareholders make the next news in the growing nonlegacy media?
Agree completely. Take her words literally. However, I do have a problem with eliminating Radio Free Europe and other radio outlets abroad where our government can get its views across the world where state media can be extremely anti-U.S. Those outlets can also get real news to the rest of the world. In the past our media efforts were a beacon of freedom and hopefully can be again.
Yeah! Broadcast Sean Hannity, not those freaking communist leeches and parasites at PBS, NPR, DNC et al.
Hannity tanked. Think it’s now AI generated crap.
Such as yourself.
Dr. Turley, though you are right, “…based on the principle that democracies do not selectively subsidize media outlets. We have long rejected the model of state media….”, there’s a bit more to it: we now have just such a problem, an insidious problem, that brewed most intensely and gained in strength during the Obama years. Let us never forget how he and his administration persecuted journalists and unleashed the IRS on political opposition. [Lawfare is nothing new.] Though a certain amount of bias, human error, is hard to avoid, the new model of “state media” gained its sanction, began its dangerous trend in earnest, and flouted its biased primacy with Obama’s encouragement. Today’s “subsidized,” hard-left, anti-American journalism, without self-examination or apology, is the result of an evolution toward tyranny, taught into the system via Obama’s cultural socialism.
I stopped listening to NPR news when their idea of a good long interview on Memorial Day was a very sympathetic discussion with a poor doctor who was educated by the DOD and then refused to go to the first Iraq War. She was convicted of desertion.
Yeah, Desert Storm in 1991 was when I realized what a pathetically biased “news” outlet they were. I’ve never trusted them in the 34 years since then. From what I hear, they’ve gotten even more ridiculously left-wing since that time, to the point of insanity.
What are you complaining about Kansas? The news media showed on a map where Iraq was, and got it right! [Sarc]
NPR went downhill after Bob Edwards retired…
for me, when Steve Inskeep got pwned by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad https://n.pr/2s7iIbG
OT BREAKING NEWS, “Supreme Court allows Trump to implement transgender military ban”
The Constitution allows only President Donald J. Trump, the Commander-in-Chief, to exercise military power and impose any “military ban” he chooses.
The legislative and judicial branches have no power to usurp or exercise any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of military power.
Additionally, only the president may exercise executive power.
The legislative and judicial branches may not usurp any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
No legislation by the legislative branch and no adjudication by the judicial branch may exercise executive power.
Only the President has the power, exclusively, to exercise executive power.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,….
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Yes, corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger is discharged.
Don’t ask, don’t tell. Billy boy Clinton.
Support NPR. Ban foxy Russian disinformation. Party on!
Turls, you’re outdoing yourself in the realm of self caused misery.
@Anonymous
The fact that you are not ‘banned’ here, says it all. Whatever, dude. Who knew lighting dollars on fire was a lucrative business? Give your employers our regards. they aren’t ever going to change a thing. they are too self-important to ever acknowledge this fact, as are you.
James,
Funny it is lost on him it was NPR who was pushing the Russiagate propaganda.