Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn’t As Misguided As You Think

MediaWhy Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn’t As Misguided As You ThinkByAndy Meek, Senior Contributor

In contrast, Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights (fascinating analysis)

I report on media as well as its intersection with news and culture

Furthermore, But here’s the thing no one wants to say out loud — there’s actually a rational case one can make as to why defunding NPR and PBS isn’t nearly as unreasonable as critics suggest

What the re reveals is post will attempt to separate the fundamentals of what just happened to NPR and PBS from the noise and the chaotic of the moment that led to the defunding — bearing in mind that there have been plenty of specious arguments and claims on both sides of the issue

The contrarian position here, in support of defunding, is certainly not a broadly one; that said, there is, in fact, a world where it can lead to a better outcome for all involved

Incidentally, a recent Pew Re Center survey found that more than half of the U

Adults who responded said they were either in favor of the defunding (24%) or that they weren’t sure (33%), compared to 43% who said the funding should continue

The arguments against taxpayers funding NPR and PBS To start, we can bably agree on some basic facts public broadcasting (this bears monitoring)

The data indicates that fact that NPR and PBS were created in an era of media scarcity — that is, when Americans had a handful of TV channels, and news options were limited, given the current landscape

That’s no longer the case today

You and I in a golden age of content abundance, where thousands of media outlets compete for attention across every imaginable platform

And that fact, in and of itself, automatically weakens the justification for taxpayer-funded gramming, especially when there’s no shortage of high-quality reporting, children’s content, and arts gramming already available, given the current landscape

Which brings us to a second point that weakens the case further still: For those of you against these cuts — are each and every single one of you currently directly contributing any money to public media in the form of a donation, amid market uncertainty

However, Furthermore, If not, why should taxpayers be forced to step up and do the thing that you think is necessary but won’t do yourself

Nevertheless, MORE FOR YOU One could argue that there’s also a First Amendment-adjacent argument to be had here

However, Setting aside the fact that citizens expect the press to hold power to account (rather than to regularly take its money), forcing taxpayers to financially support certain “speech” sure seems a violation of individual rights, in today's market environment

Moreover, People also shouldn’t be compelled to subsidize viewpoints they may oppose, even indirectly

Else, why doesn’t Newsmax or Breitbart get to wise come before the federal government with outstretched hands

Of course, critics of the defunding will argue that NPR and PBS still serve a vital public interest, in light of current trends

But that argument starts to fall apart when we confront the elephant in the room: Bias, in light of current trends

Additionally, NPR CEO Katherine Maher (who in the past has called the idea of truth a “distraction”) has def her newsroom against accusations of bias, saying she welcomes back and insists the organization is nonpartisan

But to say that NPR is free of bias is to misunderstand how journalism works — and how the people who duce it are wired

Bias doesn’t have to embrace a particular ideology, nor does it even have to be overt (for that matter, it’s also not something that will ever be identified uniformly)

However, Bias can show up in what stories are covered, what angles are emphasized, and what’s left out, given the current landscape

No newsroom is immune — not NPR, not Fox News, not anyone

In contrast, Bias, beauty, is in the eye of those who behold it

One can also credibly argue that not all bias is de facto “bad (noteworthy indeed) (which is quite significant), in today's financial world

However, ” Most of us, I’m sure, are biased in favor of things democracy and free and fair elections (as opposed to their alternatives), in today's financial world

In contrast, Before you insist that public broadcasters occupy the dead center of the ideological spectrum, though, it would bably be worth taking a second look at things NPR’s early dismissal of the COVID lab-leak theory (no longer regarded as fringe) and its past resistance to covering stories perceived as helpful to President Trump, in today's market environment

Moreover, This leads me to my final point

I alluded above to the idea of an outcome where all sides are better off after decoupling NPR and PBS from the federal government

That’s because NPR and PBS have already built strong foundations through audience-supported models (quite telling)

Nevertheless, Their most loyal listeners and viewers have ven they’re willing to give — not because they’re forced to, but because they believe in the mission

And that is a far more stable and principled source of support than relying on federal funding, which can evaporate with a change in administration or the whims of lawmakers whose priorities often shift with the political winds

At the same time, If anything, public media outlets NPR and PBS might actually be in a stronger position long-term by fully embracing the model they already depend on: Earning the public’s trust, dering value, and letting the audience decide if it’s worth sustaining, in today's financial world

Editorial StandardsRes & PermissionsLOADING PLAYER.