Was this in the pledge?

Editor’s note: Yes, I realize this is way behind the news cycle…but I wrote it, then had to set it aside for a while. I spent a lot of time on it and I don’t want it to go to waste. Humor me, please.

With crystal clear focus and laser precision, the Republican party made sure we knew it was gonna be different this time.

It’s hard to believe it was just six months ago when the Grand Old Party unveiled its “Pledge To America,” a 21-page document that outlined the its governing agenda. Just 11 grafs in, it’s spelled out in simple language: “The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.”

That, apparently, includes taking away funding for public broadcasting. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a measure recently that would prevent stations from buying programming from National Public Radio – or any other source – with the $22 million they receive from the federal government.

So…is that repairing our economy? Or does that reclaim the government?

It’s interesting to see a party that blamed, in part, a “polarizing political environment” for “fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose” spend so much time passing bills that they know will never pass the Senate, let alone get signed by President Obama. This measure, just like “repealing” the Affordable Health Care Act, is nothing more than red meat for the conservative base, designed to stir them up as we approach the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

One could try to declare this a great victory for fiscal conservatives, but look at that figure a few grafs up: $22 million. Barely a dent in the federal budget. No less than Rep. Ron Paul took to the house floor to criticize the move, saying:

“The very most they might save is $10 million, and that’s their claim to fame for slashing the budget. At the same time they won’t consider for a minute cutting a real, significant amount of money. All empires end for fiscal reasons, because they spread themselves too far around the world – and that’s what we’re facing.”

“That’s their claim to face for slashing the budget.” This is the root of what the Republicans are doing. They are returning to this focus on divisive wedge issues that helped drive me from the party in the first place. The attempt to cut funding from Planned Parenthood was just the beginning.

Public broadcasting, specifically NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, have long been conservative targets, considered to be far too liberal. The 228 Republicans who passed this measure will indeed brag to their constituents about cutting the budget while sticking it to the liberal elite at the same time. They may have accomplished neither.

Mike Durbin, the author of Principled Thoughts, asked me “If NPR is so great, how come it can’t be privately funded”? That, I told him, was the wrong question…and not just because NPR gets only about $5.4 million per year from the federal government. The majority of its $65 million budget comes from local stations, which pay for the programming (you’ve heard the pledge drives…I know you have). So it’s entirely possible that, minus this money, NPR will survive. But again, this is the wrong question.

Here’s the right question: Why does the United States need public, non-commercial, news broadcasting and reporting? It was answered in a far more eloquent manner than I could achieve in the pages of The Washington Post by Leonard Downie, Jr., a professor of journalism at Arizona State University, and Robert G. Kaiser, an associate editor at The Post. It’s well worth a read. Here’s a key snippet:

“…equally important to us is local news coverage, which has been even more severely weakened by shrunken reporting staffs and ambitions at newspapers and commercial stations in too many cities and towns. We have long believed that Americans benefit when powerful institutions and important issues in their lives are scrutinized by good reporters on their behalf. Yet this kind of ambitious local news coverage by commercial media has diminished in community after community in recent years.”

I have a clear bias here. Every paycheck I ever collected as a sports editor came from a community publication. While national and regional news organizations do wonderful things, there is no replacing what local, feet-on-the-ground, immersed-in-the-community reporting can offer a town of any size. And no group is better prepared to than a group that doesn’t have to rely on advertising revenue to survive. Those are the journalists who are able to take risks, to go after stories that might make advertisers or members of the local government uncomfortable.

James Fallows wrote a piece on “Why NPR Matters” back during the Juan Williams debacle, well before this bill was introduced. It’s timely now, though, as he points out:

“In their current anti-NPR initiative, Fox and the Republicans would like to suggest that the main way NPR differs from Fox is that most NPR employees vote Democratic. That is a difference, but the real difference is what they are trying to do. NPR shows are built around gathering and analyzing the news, rather than using it as a springboard for opinions. And while of course the selection of stories and analysts is subjective and can show a bias, in a serious news organization the bias is something to be worked against rather than embraced. NPR, like the New York Times, has an ombudsman. Does Fox? [I think the answer is No.]”

But perhaps my whole rant here is overthinking things a bit. This is not a serious bill introduced by the Republicans. They have to know – like repealing health care reform – it will never make it through the Senate or get signed by the president. They don’t necessarily want it to, though. This is a chance to stir up partisan feelings in preparation for the 2012 elections. Plain and simple. And it’s exactly the kind of thing they pledged to us they wouldn’t do. They are just continuing to fray the bonds among our people and blur our sense of national purpose.

And yes, Michael, I know you favor cutting all federal funding to private organizations. I know this won’t sway you. But this is my honest answer.

–QCFM

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. We’ve tangled a lot lately so I’ll try to keep this short. I understand your argument for local reporting. Being a politician, I saw it first hand in the reporters I talked to from the locally-owned paper vs. the reporter from the nationwide chain. But I also know there are excellent reporters who are no less unbiased and hungry for only the truth in their stories in broadcast and print despite their employer.

    I’m not going to defend the Republicans for doing the right thing only when it’s politically expedient for them. They should do it all the time. A principled stand doesn’t change depending upon who’s in power.

    They should have been trying to introduce a bill pulling NPR’s funding when they didn’t have control of any branch of government. The odds of getting the right thing done shouldn’t determine whether or not you do the right thing.

    That being said, you criticize the right for pulling $5.4 million, or whatever the amount is, saying it will hurt NPR’s reporting that the nation needs so badly. You have tried to make the case that the funding is badly needed to provide some reporting that no other organization can. But you’re completely silent on the executive pay of NPR and the pay of the not-so-local personalities that arguably don’t contribute to the local flavor.

    Local reporters do what they do for a shamefully small amount of money. NPR typically depends upon college intern labor and local volunteerism. However, on the national level, costs for NPR’s “talent” and executive pay are ludicrous.

    The President of NPR came home with $1.2 million in 2009.

    Figures from the latest IRS 990 form for National Public Radio, FY 2005, just for the top five on-air hosts:
    Renee Montagne
    Compensation: $308,374
    Contributions to benefit plan: $30,640

    Steve Inskeep
    Compensation: $301,856
    Contributions to benefit plan: $35,572

    Robert Siegel
    Compensation: $288,795
    Contribution to benefit plan: $24,480

    Scott Simon
    Compensation: $266,821
    Contribution to benefit plan: $33,572

    Alexander Chadwick
    Compensation: $235,173
    Contribution to benefit plan: $29,564

    If NPR were so virtuous and such a contributor to the local news scene, would the organization be structured like this? Wouldn’t a structure of a more local focus more than cover the loss of $5.4 million in federal funding?

    I’m sure it won’t come as much of a surprise, but I’m not much of an NPR listener. That being said, who are the local NPR reporters who provide so much more to the community than those who work for a commercial news firm? I honestly couldn’t name you one NPR reporter, but could name you the entire staff of the NixaXpress and Christian County Headliner, or could even name off most of the reporters for the top two television news stations in the area and several radio news reporters from various types of radio.

    In the Springfield area, I haven’t talked to a single reporter associated with NPR, but have talked to some excellent ones from all areas of broadcast and print who only had a desire to report the truth. I saw absolutely no evidence of their commercial nature getting in the way of their reporting.

    I think the left is painting themselves into a corner if this is the position they wish to take. If more local reporting is the desire and the organization that has local reporting is the most worthy of federal funding, I’m not seeing NPR as being the best example.

    Don’t get me wrong, a private firm can pay its talent and executives as much as it desires. I’m not one to criticize the pay of a CEO no matter how huge it seems to me, until tax-payers money comes into the picture. Then I think we have every right to keep an eye on our money and question whether or not we’re getting value for our dollar. If NPR is selling local news for what we pay into it, I’m not getting my money’s worth.

    But using yours and others assertion that the local reporting is what is so necessary and NPR is supposedly all about, not the national talent like Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC are so heavily dependent upon, you would think their pay would match their focus at least a little.

  2. Well, you’re preaching to the choir about local reporters’ salaries, Michael. It’s one of the downsides to community journalism. You don’t do it to get rich. You do it because it matters to you.

    As for NPR’s salaries. That doesn’t stir me up. What you’re seeing there is what you’d find anywhere. The big wigs make the big bucks. It’s a fact.

    KSMU does quite a bit of local reporting – more than about any other local radio station – and I think Missy Shelton in particular does good work. But, like any media, if you don’t consume it, you don’t know who does it.

    In the grand scheme, the amount of money we’re talking about here is pretty small. Again, this is NOT about the budget. They could get all federal money taken away from Planned Parenthood, NPR and CPB and we both know the budget would still be in abysmal shape. It takes magical thinking to believe otherwise. This is about 2012.

    And I don’t think the Democrats are doing any better. It’s like both sides are marking time, ready to pounce and blame the other if things don’t get better or get worse. It’s frustrating.

    • I’ll agree with you completely about the posturing of politicians. It’s not impressing anyone who pays attention, but unfortunately fools enough of the people for them to keep doing it. Frustrating indeed.

  3. […] the negative outcomes that Nostradamus predicted for 2012. A great related post about this: https://queencityfamilyman.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/was-this-in-the-pledge/ Also you can read this related blog page: […]


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s