This is another case of "Preach to the Choir" statements. Everything we said is true but how does the general public understand that is yet to be seen when its clouded in disinformation about Public media. Also if there are editorials on NPR, its likely on the local affiliate. Ever since the Uri Berliner op-ed came out, there is all sorts of stuff about digging everything about the CEO. However, some of the things Katherine Maher said was her personal opinions not related to Wikimedia and NPR's operations specifically.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
NY Times Article on Challenges Facing NPR
- Thread starter Barry
- Start date
- Status
I agree. A lawsuit ready to happen.
I believe NPR should respond that they will comply with such a request if all news agencies are required to do the same, including Newscorp (Fox News).
I think the federal funding is the issue.
I understand, but even though NPR gets a small percentage of public funding, their staff still works at a network that presents news and news topics. Requiring an organization considered a network to reveal individual staff political affiliations, should mean equal staff political leanings across a larger cross-section of similar media organizations should be required. You know, 'fair and balanced'. We both know that there's no way Congress would ask all media organizations to do the same, but the request would be easily shot down if the Congressional Pin Heads(tm) realized that NPR could publicly back them into a corner with such a ridiculous demand.
That's not how it works. They couch their request specifically about federal funding. You can be as liberal as you want, but not with taxpayer money.
The mistake they make is specifically asking for party affiliation, when that's not mentioned in the law or the appropriation. Hiring isn't based on political diversity. If that's what they want, it needs to be in the law. They also really don't know how the federal funding is used. It's very possible that no federal funding is used to pay the CEO. Her pay is based on corporate donations. A lot of the federal money is used for things that have nothing to do with news.
The real question here is how truthful was the Berliner piece. They're assuming it's all true, because it serves their purposes.
But that doesn't allow the government to pry into private citizens' personal lives in an effort to do nothing more than pursue political theater. Some politicians want to play in the public spotlight. Then a media organization like NPR can play on that field better because that's their business.
That's what I'm saying. Politicians looking for another 'bathroom-ban example' to gin-up their base.
I thought Steve Inskeep handled it very well in his Substack piece. He admitted that there was a tiny bit of truth to what Berliner wrote, but it was done poorly, unfair to other staff, with untrue elements Berliner was claiming as fact. Staff political party affiliation statistics, in particular.
I agree. It's an inappropriate question.
AFAIK they haven't asked Berliner to testify. But seems to me he has some 'splaining to do.
The letter from Congress also brings up the Hunter Biden laptop story. It should be pointed out that was an exclusive story, and the NY Post refused to allow other journalists to authenticate the laptop. That was why NPR didn't cover it. Plus there were questions about Russian disinformation. Better wait until the FBI looked into it. Which is what they did.
Given 1) the GOP's house majority is now narrowly small, besieged by dysfunction and continuing to shrink before November and 2) the Hunter Biden "investigations" by the Judiciary Committee have yielded absolutely nothing but an embarrassing waste of millions of taxpayer dollars and no legal action, NPR has little to worry about.The House of Representatives has launched an official investigation into the charges of political bias at NPR:
House Republicans Open Probe Of NPR Amid Allegations of Political Bias.
Funding of public radio has long had critics in conservative circles, but the recent controversy involving allegations of political bias at NPR is giving new energy to the effort towww.insideradio.com
It's red meat for the base, though I suppose one of the red states could defund their state networks.
There are a number of opinion articles being written about these defund NPR bills. This one suggests combining it with a revival of the fairness doctrine:
augustafreepress.com
His point is you want to defund NPR because of bias, then let's address the bias in talk radio. Quid pro quo.
Dems should back Defund NPR Act, in quid pro quo reviving Fairness Doctrine
Fifth District Congressman Bob Good has introduced a bill called the Defund NPR Act that would, well, you know.
augustafreepress.com
His point is you want to defund NPR because of bias, then let's address the bias in talk radio. Quid pro quo.
We do have talk licensed by the federal government claiming the sitting US government is illegitimate and that the loser of the last election is the "real President".There are a number of opinion articles being written about these defund NPR bills. This one suggests combining it with a revival of the fairness doctrine:
Dems should back Defund NPR Act, in quid pro quo reviving Fairness Doctrine
Fifth District Congressman Bob Good has introduced a bill called the Defund NPR Act that would, well, you know.
His point is you want to defund NPR because of bias, then let's address the bias in talk radio. Quid pro quo.
They also view the removal of AM from cars as interfering with their free speech.
So it's democratic when it's conservative.
The congressional hearings on NPR focus on the use of federal funding. There have been other attempts to use federal funding for journalism. So far, the legislation has only been passed in some blue or purple states:
niemanreports.org
For the most part, conservatives in congress are against federal funding for anything other than defense and themselves.
Meet The States Using Public Funding to Support Local Journalism - Nieman Reports
Covering thought leadership in journalism
niemanreports.org
For the most part, conservatives in congress are against federal funding for anything other than defense and themselves.
This comes up every year or two. NPR will not lose funding and things will continue on as they were. Sure, we are likely as divided as we were in the Civil war and for the stupid reason of hating about something you cannot control. But division has always been a part of this country and you have to have some for the government to function.
I thought of this thread when I saw this old poster from a state liquor store in the restroom of a Des Moines restaurant today.
In this case; because politicians are inserting themselves into radio.
In the same entirely predictable and boring way they predictably do every few years, with the same predictable and boring results.
If there's a new development, I get that there would be something interesting to discuss. But if it's just the same talking points that get dragged out every time, with the same results, what's worth talking about?
I agree, but this is unusual in a new twist on political theater; Congress is reported to, or going to ask NPR staffers to reveal their personal political affiliations/registration. This sort of thing hasn't happened since McCarthyism.
- Status