END NPR's taxpayer funded gravy train
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-end-nprs-taxpayer-funded-gravy-train
"This is NPR." That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution following the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.
While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.
Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead chose Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.
Some have long questioned the federal government's subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that "federal funding is essential" to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.
Let me count the ways:
1. NPR was obsolete even when the far left had a monopoly on all news and opinion.
2. Today, you can get the news from HUNDREDS of sources, all capitalist and all available online. And you can get all points of view from these diverse sources. (Or you can just go to Fox News where you get all points of view and they get equal time.)
3. NPR is welfare to the rich. It's funding needs to be removed. It is about as useful as the Department Of Education.
"This is NPR." That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution following the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.
While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.
Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead chose Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.
Some have long questioned the federal government's subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that "federal funding is essential" to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.
Let me count the ways:
1. NPR was obsolete even when the far left had a monopoly on all news and opinion.
2. Today, you can get the news from HUNDREDS of sources, all capitalist and all available online. And you can get all points of view from these diverse sources. (Or you can just go to Fox News where you get all points of view and they get equal time.)
3. NPR is welfare to the rich. It's funding needs to be removed. It is about as useful as the Department Of Education.
