Public Radio versus the Republican Party

I’m crazy about radio. I’m a fan of National Public Radio (NPR).

If you understand English, listen to NPR on the Internet. The programs on this American public radio network are excellent. Its two main shows (“Morning Edition,” in the morning, and “All Things Considered,” in the evening) are models of quality. Without hectic jingles or superficiality, real radio voices communicate and explain national and international news. The stories and guests are generally very good. The cultural programming is rich, entertaining and certainly not pretentious and intellectualized (if you follow my drift).

The space given to quality news (I’m not talking about weather or sports) on private American radio waves has been reduced to practically nothing. Without NPR, American radio would be nonexistent.

There is just one little problem. With the exception of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, NPR suffers from what all other American media suffers from today. Generally, and in a subtle fashion, the news is analyzed by journalists who are almost exclusively pro-Democrat.

What makes this “bias” even more painful for listeners who don’t identify themselves with the Democratic Party’s positions is the often superior and contemptuous air of the elites who support NPR off the air. How many Washington dinners and cocktail parties did I have to endure where these Democratic admirers of France explained to me that “middle America is uncultured, and that is why it votes Republican”?

I am shocked to think that those who don’t share one’s views would be seen as dimwits and fanatics who pass off their liberal ideology or religious conviction without any reasoning. The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives is no longer able to stand this Democratic dictatorship of thought. One NPR executive just resigned: He was caught on hidden camera describing the leaders of the tea party as fanatical obscurantists. In the mess, the director of NPR also had to resign.

Democratic political debate requires that viewpoints be shared, that solutions be sought and that one accept that the informed majority of voters deserve to decide.

What happens if the majority is not well informed? Answer: freedom of the press. The voter has the right and the responsibility to read, listen and look at many information sources in order to inform himself. By reading my blog right now, you’re not looking for THE truth. You’re looking for YOUR truth. You’re forming an opinion.

The House Republicans just voted for a bill that would make it illegal for some 800 state or university radio stations to use federal funds to purchase programs from NPR. The savings for Uncle Sam is miserable: only 60 million dollars. The Republicans’ real objective isn’t to reduce the deficit. It is to end government subsidies to an organization that in their eyes perpetuates the domination of Democratic ideas: more taxes and more government in citizens’ lives.

What makes this debate interesting and complex is that only 2 percent of NPR’s budget comes from federal subsidies. The rest comes from private sponsors and revenue from state stations that subscribe to its programs. Congress couldn’t kill NPR even if it wanted to. It is, in any case, rather unlikely that the Senate, conservative but with a slight Democratic majority, will follow the House in this vote.

What conclusions should we draw from this controversy?

1) In America, as in other countries, a self-proclaimed intelligentsia sincerely believes that the left is always right and that when the people don’t think it’s right, it’s the people who are wrong. For all that, traditional American thought has a tough time accepting that public funding should go to pay journalists who are more liberal and enlightened than others in order to save public opinion from the tragic error that it is being led to by the free competition of mass media.

2) It is my belief that NPR was wrong to launch a campaign accusing the nasty Republicans of depriving them of an outlet.

NPR is a remarkable organization that would be even more remarkable if it recognized that it must fight these “progressive” prejudices. The “politically correct” tone of NPR is also annoying. I only support it because the programming is of such a high caliber.

3) We have to save NPR. In order to do so, NPR must rid itself entirely of federal subsidies. Contributions from private businesses, listeners, universities and states would largely suffice. Twenty-seven million listeners deserve to have this quality programming continue competing with the immense news and cultural programming offerings that are available to America.