NY Times Article on Challenges Facing NPR

[TheBigA]

In the same entirely predictable and boring way they predictably do every few years, with the same predictable and boring results.

This is different. This time they have a very specific way to control how the money is spent, rather than hurting the local stations. So they still fund the stations, and the stations can't use the federal money to buy NPR programming.

Sure, money is fungible, so it will be hard to make that work. But it's a new approach to the old refrain.

On the Senate side, they're calling for more CPB oversight in how federal funding is appropriated. Right now, only 5% of CPB money has restrictions. It's possible that a bill could put more restrictions on money.

Of course practically speaking, at least for this term, the chance of getting ANY bill passed is zero. But the politicians are getting smarter in the way they're targeting their arrows.

At the same time, you have conservatives who see this as a way to control the message, the way they did when they took over VOA:

I’m a conservative but defunding NPR is a mistake. What should happen instead might be surprising

After an explosive essay published by former NPR editor Uri Berliner the news network is now facing proposals to strip it of all federal funding especially from conservatives.

www.foxnews.com

Instead of a quixotic "defund" campaign, Congress should pursue a different, more constructive course: serious oversight of its public broadcasting appropriations. That might include hearings about bias similar to the dramatic hearings in which Ivy League presidents have been called to account for campus antisemitism. Absent federal funding, there would be no opportunity for such oversight—which has simply not been taking place.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Former NPR chair and interim CEO, a Republican, weighs in (gift link, tested):

https://wapo.st/3UuoNNU

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Former NPR chair and interim CEO, a Republican, weighs in (gift link, tested):

https://wapo.st/3UuoNNU

Yes and the op-ed is saying the same stuff we have said on how Public radio works from NPR to the local affiliates for some time. Defunding CPB hits the local news outlets hard as mentioned here.

Defunding public media might feel good as a way to punish some inside-the-Beltway journalists for the occasional lapse in objectivity. (By the way, I am certain that a survey of the party registrations of member-station journalists would not be nearly as lopsided as one of the D.C. newsroom.) But the knock-on effect of defunding would be to further harm local journalism to the serious detriment of our democracy. We know what happens when local news goes away: Turnout in local elections declines, public officials can act with impunity and political discourse becomes more polarized. In certain rural areas, public radio stations are the only sources of local news and operate an essential public service by disseminating lifesaving emergency alerts.NPR is one of the top American journalism organizations, and it is part of the public radio network that is essential to our nation. Let’s protect it. As president and CEO, Katherine Maher is a new leader for NPR. I’ve met with her and strongly believe we should give her a chance.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Another item that caught my attention is their plan to grill the CEO about her personal opinions:

As I've said, the CEO isn't a journalist, and the company isn't strictly a news company. She doesn't even do editorials, as some companies have done.

Maher appears to have been involved in the NGO space - or at least NGO-adjacent - as well as foreign policy matters. She doesn't seem to be quite an establishment figure; even so, you can probably count on her experience being caricatured. That's particularly the case given that some of her background is in technology, and tech has a bad odor right now...even if she hasn't been directly involved with the big, big companies. Logic isn't going to play much of a role here.

We all know that congressional hearings are relatively unproductive when it comes to eliciting information.

 

[Mark Roberts]

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 think the new development here is that the critiques are coming from someone positioning himself as a (now-former) insider spilling purported inside information, possibly jealous that he couldn't have been the star of 1951's I Was a Communist for the FBI, with the added twist of portraying himself as an ideological victim in the genre that I call Poor, Poor Pitiful Me pieces.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Yes and the op-ed is saying the same stuff we have said on how Public radio works from NPR to the local affiliates for some time. Defunding CPB hits the local news outlets hard as mentioned here.

I hate to break the news to you, but no one significant in the firmament of Washington, D.C. is going to pay attention to what you or I or anyone else here says. The fact that Haaga is a former board chair and interim CEO is what gives the piece the necessary weight, along with his knowledgeable description of the NPR editorial processes.

 

[TheBigA]

The fact that Haaga is a former board chair and interim CEO is what gives the piece the necessary weight, along with his knowledgeable description of the NPR editorial processes.

He knows more about it than Maher. He should be the one testifying.

 

[Weiserguy]

Maher appears to have been involved in the NGO space - or at least NGO-adjacent - as well as foreign policy matters. She doesn't seem to be quite an establishment figure; even so, you can probably count on her experience being caricatured. That's particularly the case given that some of her background is in technology, and tech has a bad odor right now...even if she hasn't been directly involved with the big, big companies. Logic isn't going to play much of a role here.

Maher was -- at least as of 2020 -- the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, raising money to support Wikipedia*. (I found a 2020-dated solicitation from her in my Gmail archives just now, which had convinced me to drop a Twenty in their coffers.) You could call that tech-adjacent, but it's not quite in the same league as Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai. And she, like everyone else not covered by the Hatch Act, is entitled to not only have opinions and political philosophies, but to act on them to the full extent of the First Amendment.

* Whether you like them or not, no one can claim with any credibility that Wikipedia exists to rake in the big bucks.

 

[Weiserguy]

He knows more about it than Maher. He should be the one testifying.

Nobody should be testifying on this topic. Not until all of the hypocrites in Congress who gave their middle fingers to requests (and subpoenas) for testimony from the J6 Committee have their own Come-to-Jesus experience.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Maher was -- at least as of 2020 -- the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, raising money to support Wikipedia*. (I found a 2020-dated solicitation from her in my Gmail archives just now, which had convinced me to drop a Twenty in their coffers.) You could call that tech-adjacent, but it's not quite in the same league as Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai.

True, but the bearers of the pitchforks aren't going for subtle - or even not-so-subtle - distinctions. They're going on the attack.

Maher seems to have been an up-and-comer, at least until now: graduate of the American University in Cairo and NYU, various foreign-service and public-minded foundation experiences - even getting a story about her wedding last year in the New York Times!

And she, like everyone else not covered by the Hatch Act, is entitled to not only have opinions and political philosophies, but to act on them to the full extent of the First Amendment.

When the hysteria gets spinning, though, legal protections are often trampled upon - and recourse through the court system takes time and money.

Asking Maher her political opinions or philosophies is actually a useless activity: NPR has to be scrupulous about opinion-based programming since member stations' licenses are noncommercial and thus restricted from certain forms of editorializing. So it's not her opinions that matter. I also don't recall ever hearing an NPR member station editorialize on its own, either, even for motherhood and apple pie.

 

[Mark Roberts]

This is different. This time they have a very specific way to control how the money is spent, rather than hurting the local stations. So they still fund the stations, and the stations can't use the federal money to buy NPR programming.

...which actually hurts the local stations because NPR programming - ME and ATC - are the cornerstones of their daily schedules.

Data point: I'm listening to IPR tonight, during the Studio One (AAA) time on the News & Studio One network. Up comes a brief fundraising moment: a spot featuring a listener from Moravia, expressing his appreciation for IPR's and NPR's news coverage.

Note well: Moravia. I know Moravia. It's 12 miles from the town where I spent six years of my childhood, and in the same county. It is no liberal hotbed. Far from it. Not sure whether that listener is picking up WOI-FM directly or getting IPR from its Ottumwa repeaters, but it's definitely small-town Iowa.

 

[TheBigA]

One point in the Haaga article I want to highlight

I have long known that most of NPR’s D.C.-based journalists are Democrats, and, while I wish there were a few more Republicans like me in the building, I have been fine with it. This is because I have always known that I was listening to people who were professional journalists first and Democrats only after that. Like others, I have occasionally pointed out pieces that could have been fairer, more objective or better balanced, and I have always felt that my comments were taken seriously.

This is something that needs to be emphasized. There is an assumption people make that there is no such thing as professional integrity. There is.

The other key point in Haaga's article is the ombudsman, or public editor, whose job it is to point out errors or shortcomings in NPR's news reporting. So there already are safeguards in the system that were not mentioned in the original Berliner piece.