Why the right really hates NPR - with or without Juan Williams

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Joe Conason

Is it plausible that the right-wing uproar over NPR's firing of Juan Williams is motivated by concern for "free speech" – and not by longstanding conservative animus against public broadcasting? To anyone who has been paying attention to the behavior of politicians, pundits, and media agitators on the right for the past few decades, the latest upwelling of volcanic rhetoric is drearily familiar.

These same voices have reliably exploited every chance to damage public broadcasting, not because of any supposed liberal bias, but because they disdain the straightforward, probing journalism that the public network provides every day. What the NPR haters want to see and hear on America's airwaves is the "fair and balanced mentality" of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage and nothing else. After all, they hate CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC with almost equal passion, no matter how much those networks or NPR bend over to accomodate conservative viewpoints.

Now reasonable people can certainly dispute NPR's decision to dismiss Williams over his remarks on Fox News about fearing Muslims. Reasonable people can question the way in which NPR management handled that decision. And reasonable people can wonder whether NPR news standards place too much emphasis on objectivity. Perhaps that obsession would fade if Republicans finally succeeded in withdrawing federal funds from the network.

But like any other news organization, NPR must be free to determine its own standards and practices, which Williams had clearly violated on more than one occasion. If the network's management believes that his expressions of befuddled opinion have compromised his stature as a "news analyst," that should be their prerogative – without partisan interference from Congress.

Of course it is also the prerogative of public radio critics to question that decision and demand that federal funding be reduced or withdrawn. But be assured that such demands have nothing to do with protecting Williams' right to speak freely, which he will continue to exercise for top dollar on Fox News, in the same role he has long played as a tame "liberal" (the only kind that Roger Ailes will usually tolerate on his network). What the right dislikes about NPR, aside from its dogged effort to achieve ideological balance, is its devotion to actual reporting about real issues, from campaign finance and Congressional lobbying to the Supreme Court, the war in Afghanistan, and mine safety.

For me, the imperative is to protect one of the nation's last, best sources of news against the partisan political abuse of a single controversial decision. Every day, NPR provides journalistic value worth far more than anything that Juan Williams will say or do if he lives for another hundred years – no, make that a thousand years. Both the network and its local affiliates provide news and information available on no other broadcast outlets. They provide that service as fairly and honestly as any news organization in America, giving copious airtime to politicians and commentators of many stripes, including those like Newt Gingrich who have sought repeatedly to destroy them. (Their coverage of the Wiliams firing is scrupulously fair and even self-critical -- something that will never be seen on Fox.) Moreover, their local stations foster a sense of community that offends the selfish, paranoid sensibility of the far right.

Without NPR, we would soon be left with very little on the radio that doesn't conform to the debased worldview of Rupert Murdoch, or that fails to make money for the likes of him.

The Williams affair happens to have occurred at a moment when many NPR stations are in the midst of seasonal fundraising. With that coincidence comes an unusual opportunity. I've been a regularly contributing member of my local NPR station for many years; but this week, I'm going to give a few dollars more. Everybody who prefers real reporting to propaganda parading as journalism can ante up, too.

link

[Obama 2012 1,714]

NPR has been a joke for a long long time.... They use "blogs" as news sources 80% of the time and have been quite dishonest in their practices over the years.

Any radio network that discusses policies/politics, should NOT ever receive government funding.

If it can't stand on its own two feet, then it says ALOT about it...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Any radio network that discusses policies/politics, should NOT ever receive government funding.

If it can't stand on its own two feet, then it says ALOT about it...

Entrepreneurialism and journalistic integrity are like oil and water. It is very difficult to maintain objectivity when your job depends on ratings. Public radio and television removes that outside influence, allowing journalists to seek out the truth, even when it is unpopular or upsetting to the status quo. That is the job of journalists.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Entrepreneurialism and journalistic integrity are like oil and water. It is very difficult to maintain objectivity when your job depends on ratings. Public radio and television removes that outside influence, allowing journalists to seek out the truth, even when it is unpopular or upsetting to the status quo. That is the job of journalists.

What planet are you from? NPR is so biased that is cannot be called journalism. It is just a publicly funded DNC shill. You b!tch about Fox being biased and then turn a blind eye to NPR. If NPR wants to shill for the liberal side of things that is fine as long as public funds are not being used.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What planet are you from? NPR is so biased that is cannot be called journalism. It is just a publicly funded DNC shill. You b!tch about Fox being biased and then turn a blind eye to NPR. If NPR wants to shill for the liberal side of things that is fine as long as public funds are not being used.

Is Barney too liberal for you? How about Sesame Street? Balance? There's Oscar the Grouch (definitely a Right Winger) to Big Bird.

Public radio and television has long aired programs from all perspectives, it's just that you can't tolerate anything liberal.

For decades, William F. Buckley’s Firing Line was practically synonymous with public broadcasting, ending a record-setting 33-year run when the conservative National Review founder retired it in 1999. A rival to Fox News Channel could be launched with the list of conservatives who have hosted or produced shows on public television over the years: John McLaughlin (The McLaughlin Group, McLaughlin’s One on One), Peggy Noonan (On Values), Ben Wattenberg (Think Tank and Values Matter Most), Laura Ingraham and Larry Elder (National Desk), Tony Brown (Tony Brown’s Journal), William Bennett (Adventures From the Book of Virtues), Milton Friedman (Free to Choose, Tyranny of the Status Quo), Fred Barnes (National Desk, Reverse Angle), Morton Kondracke (Reverse Angle, American Interests) and Tony Snow (The New Militant Center). (With the exceptions of McLaughlin’s and Friedman’s shows, all of these received CPB funding.)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2671

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Is Barney too liberal for you? How about Sesame Street? Balance? There's Oscar the Grouch (definitely a Right Winger) to Big Bird.

Public radio and television has long aired programs from all perspectives, it's just that you can't tolerate anything liberal.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2671

What does sesame Street have to do with journalism? Nice try at deflection. NPR's journalism has a strong left bias. This is something you cannot deny.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Although I really may not be considered on the "right" I really couldn't care less about NPR. I think they have long outlived any need for MY money, that is all. There are far too many information choices available for the governemnt to any longer need to finance (even partially) NPR. Let them function like everyone else.

FWIW I also support their right to hire or fire anyone at will. Just say so, that's all. THEN let US decide if we will support them after they take these actions. Simple.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[ready4ONE 5,400]

What does sesame Street have to do with journalism? Nice try at deflection. NPR's journalism has a strong left bias. This is something you cannot deny.

Way to glom on to point A and ignore the extensive on point rebuttal in point B! That is something you can't deny...

I don't listen to NPR so I can't say if they went far left after 1999 but they definitely have a significant track record of Right leaning programming.

I agree firing Juan was wrong, but he did cry all the way to the bank and was 'unemployed' for about 15 minutes.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Way to glom on to point A and ignore the extensive on point rebuttal in point B! That is something you can't deny...

I don't listen to NPR so I can't say if they went far left after 1999 but they definitely have a significant track record of Right leaning programming.

I agree firing Juan was wrong, but he did cry all the way to the bank and was 'unemployed' for about 15 minutes.

Most of the shows were public TV not NPR. Lets keep to the original point. NPR's journalism is biased. I stand behind that comment.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Entrepreneurialism and journalistic integrity are like oil and water. It is very difficult to maintain objectivity when your job depends on ratings. Public radio and television removes that outside influence, allowing journalists to seek out the truth, even when it is unpopular or upsetting to the status quo. That is the job of journalists.

Dude, don't even try and call NPR truthful. It doesn't fly.

Give them an 80% truth rating, sure, but possibly even less than that.

NPR makes Limbaugh look unbiased at times, and at least he's more honest about it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

LOL. NPR Doesn't kowtow the republican point of view so of course they must be biased. Only the one and only Fox News tells the truth all the time. I bet none of you who have weighed in against NPR have actually ever heard it beyond 8 second, cherry picked and edited clips that suit your agenda.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

unlike most sheeple, I listen to/watch most of everything and especially C-Span from time to time to get the whole truth and not just the media spin on it...

NPR used to be my primary listening choice from noon to 5 every day, then got sick of the rhetoric there that was played off as fact...

Fox News & MSDNC are jokes upon themselves at times, though the "news" portion of Fox is pretty accurate. You only get in trouble when you start watching tools like Oreilly, Beck, and Hannity... CNN does ok when Anderson Cooper isn't throwing his personal bias on things in there, though CNN.com is inherently biased a lot of times in their cherry-picking of 'opinion' articles... ABC is probably the least biased on the "web" portion of their news.

[The_Dude 1,142]

unlike most sheeple, I listen to/watch most of everything and especially C-Span from time to time to get the whole truth and not just the media spin on it...

NPR used to be my primary listening choice from noon to 5 every day, then got sick of the rhetoric there that was played off as fact...

Fox News & MSDNC are jokes upon themselves at times, though the "news" portion of Fox is pretty accurate. You only get in trouble when you start watching tools like Oreilly, Beck, and Hannity... CNN does ok when Anderson Cooper isn't throwing his personal bias on things in there, though CNN.com is inherently biased a lot of times in their cherry-picking of 'opinion' articles... ABC is probably the least biased on the "web" portion of their news.

MSNBC and Fox are pretty good at the actual news portion. However, both are pretty bad when it comes to their commentary programming. Far too often, commentators dont' distinguish what they are presenting so that it can be perceived as news. Yes, MSNBC is slanted left/center, but Fox news is essentially the republican national spokesperson.

[peejay 327]

LOL. NPR Doesn't kowtow the republican point of view so of course they must be biased. Only the one and only Fox News tells the truth all the time. I bet none of you who have weighed in against NPR have actually ever heard it beyond 8 second, cherry picked and edited clips that suit your agenda.

The big difference here is that the taxpayer isn't propping up FOX as we do with NPR. The federal government should not be in the news business, opinion, and commentary business. I'd bet that NPR would die on the vine just like Air America and other Lefty venues without the US taxpayer being forced to subsidize so it can broadcast its Leftist slant.

This are not new revelations. This has been brought up in the past. The Juan Williams debacle just revived what many have debated for years about taxpayer funded media.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The big difference here is that the taxpayer isn't propping up FOX as we do with NPR. The federal government should not be in the news business, opinion, and commentary business. I'd bet that NPR would die on the vine just like Air America and other Lefty venues without the US taxpayer being forced to subsidize so it can broadcast its Leftist slant.

This are not new revelations. This has been brought up in the past. The Juan Williams debacle just revived what many have debated for years about taxpayer funded media.

Peejay, have you ever actually listened to NPR, or actually read about their structure? NPR recieves 10% of its funding from federal grants and 6% of it's funding from local and state grants. They receive zero direct funding from the federal, state, or local government. There is a big difference between grants and direct funding. You should actually listen to NPR broadcasts, not just what Rush says NPR is.... maybe you'll learn the difference between 16% and 100% or the difference between a grant and direct funding.