NPR Debate Exposes the Gulf Dividing America

THE RECENT CONTROVERSIES over NPR, have really upset me. Though to understand exactly why, I have to get past my reflexive response .

As I have noted here before, public radio has been a constant companion and major source of knowledge for me since I was in high school. This sounds so precious to say, I know, but I have almost "grown up" on public radio and am constantly amazed by the vast and innovative work it produces. (Coincidentally, though important to disclose here, I consulted professionally to NPR for several years in the mid-2000s, but, believe me, my attachment to it had formed long before.)

So, reflexively, I'm easily annoyed by attacks on public radio. What really gets my goat are the charges of NPR's (and public radio's) alleged "liberal bias." I hear this even from self-described liberals from time to time, but most definitely from self-described conservatives.

All I can say to them is, what!? Seriously? Because if you actually listen to it (and now I'm speaking primarily of NPR, but I think the same can be said for most local public radio stations), you will hear facts and information -- with the occasional commentary, some of which consciously gives air time to people from all points on the ideological spectrum, including, believe it or not, conservatives. It makes me wonder if these critics are truly listening to public radio or just responding to a cartoonish stereotype.

At a time when thoughtful, thorough and reliable news gathering operations are actually shrinking, NPR has expanded its reach, dispensing information that would otherwise be difficult to find about many different issues from many different spots around the world. Around major news events, Americans will be hard pressed to find the kind of reporting on the radio dial (or in many other places) they get from NPR. So why wouldn't don't Americans view it as the national treasure that it is, a great investment of public dollars?

(There are also the charges, from some of my good friends and others within the pro-Israel community -- of which consider myself a part -- that NPR specifically has anti-Israel bias. I remain mystified by these charges, but this is something for another time.)

To some ears, public radio's on-air personalities can be a bit ponderous and earnest at times -- some call it "snooty". Maybe that tone grates on the critics' nerves from time to time. Even so, I'll take it any day over the sensationlistic presentation of the news on our cable and broadcast news outlets anyday or the steady flow of crap about celebrities.

I defy anyone to explain to me where the bias is in NPR's straight news (not opinion) programs.Give me real, substantial examples of bias that anyone can agree on -- and not just one or two anomolies (like, say, the remarks of NPR's development director, which, by the way, some are now saying were distorted in the final edit). Give me real proof that the entire operation is shot through with bias (like, say, a certain cable news outlet whose begins with F and ends with x). If you can't or won't, please, don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.

All of what I've just discussed, though, remains within the province of perception or, perhaps, under the Latin maxim, de gustibus non est disputandum -- “there is no disputing about tastes.” Yes, that adage is reserved mostly for discussion of aesthetics and art, but I'd argue that political outlook is really another variant of taste -- formed both by experience, context and, I suppose to some extent, physiology (e.g. most of us recoil physically from foul smells and violent images).

My point is that debates like the one we saw the other day on the floor of the House of Representatives, which passed a measure to cut public funding for NPR  -- ridiculous as they may be, are yet another in a growing number of examples of how disparate groups of Americans are perceiving the world in starkly different ways.

No, that's not an original insight. Plenty of other commentators and much of our public opinion research has made this point for a long time. I talked about it last year around issues such as acceptance of the science on climate change and the theory of evolution.

So, what's really troubling to me about the NPR debate and the rest of public radio is not that other Americans don't share my taste. Again, de gustibus non est disputandum, baby. Rather, it seems to have gone well beyond that. We're not even using the same vocabulary to talk about it or the same yardsticks to measure what we're arguing about.

My bias -- yes, maybe I'm living in my own unreality -- is that this growing gulf of perception is being driven by people with another agenda: to win elections or higher viewer ratings. Most of that -- again, my perspective -- appears to be coming from the political right, which has been masterful over the last generation in its ability to frame issues in ways that distort what the public debates should really be about.

For example, they argued during the '80s and '90s especially that if you're not for tough anti-crime measures, such as the death penalty or mandatory minimum sentences, you're a lover of criminals; they now have framed a false choice  between efforts to limit sources of "so-called" green-house gases into the atmosphere and economic progress -- as if we can't have both; and they have so effectively branded "taxes" and "big government" as evil twins, that any politician who even thinks of raising a tax -- indeed, of not lowering one -- should be considered suicidal and public employees are likely feeling like enemies of the people. Then there's the argument that easy access to guns is good for us and that immigrants -- not just the illegal ones, but also the ones in our midst who have made it necessary for proud Americans to have to dial 1 for English and put up with bilingual operating instructions -- are somehow bad for America. And don't get me started on the lie that Obama is a Muslim, which one of our our highest-ranking public officials, the Speaker of the House, wouldn't even dispute recently saying, "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think."  How ironic is this?

The smears about NPR bias are yet another part of this series of framed talking points. And they exaggerate the unpopularity of the radio network. Indeed, as the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in its just-released "State of the News Media: 2011",  NPR has a huge and growing audience: "National Public Radio continues to be a growing source of news for many Americans, its audience expanding each year as news disappears from commercial radio outside of the country’s largest markets.  Overall NPR’s audience grew 3% in 2010, to 27.2 million weekly listeners."

What usually happens after I post a commentary like this is that those on the "liberal" side of things say, "Yo, right on," and those on the other side tell me how misguided I am. We all play our roles, as if the script is set and inviolable. Not that, if we are true to our own selves, we should do any differently. But I'm puzzled as to how we're ever going to be able to bridge that gap.

Jeff

Comments

[Dr. Richard L. Benkin]

How's this for a different perspective? Do I think there is a bias on NPR? Yes, and that's no doubt one big perceptual difference. It reminds me of one famous New Yorker's (magazine) comment after the 1972 election. She was nonplussed at how Nixon could have won--and in a landslide yet--because "nobody I know voted for him." The perceptual difference was also on display when Bernie Goldberg asked Dan Rather where he thought the NY Times editorial page was politically. "Middle of the road," he responded. (At least it was not as embarrassing as when the long time CBS anchor and supposed knowledgeable news source was taping a segment from Jerusalem and, pointing to the Dome of the Rock, asked his producer, "What's that building?"

But back on point. We could argue that back and forth, but for me it works like this. When the economic crisis hit, a lot of businesses and families had to re-orient their sense of what was a worthy expenditure. They cut out a lot of stuff that they once spent on with ease. I am close to a lot of big and small companies and saw how many choices they had to make--and did. Productivity is at an all-time high right now, and that is one way businesses survived.

Some might find NPR a worthy enterprise--and I do not begrudge them that finding. Truth be told, this conservative listens to it from time to time. But the question really is whether or not it is a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer dollars. And how we understand that has to be different now that it was a few years ago and certainly a few decades ago.

I travel to Asia and know where our deficit and debt is taking this country, and it is not pretty. It's ethnocentric at best for us to believe that those peoples do not understand what holding all that debt means for them and their ability to dictate actions.

It is not a question of whether to cut, but a question of which elements and how deep. Obama's bi-partisan commission said that, too. We cannot keep raising the debt ceiling hoping that one day, it will all go away; and we cannot default on our obligations. Cutting spending is one big element. I like Trump's ideas about raising revenue--actually have suggested some of them myself. And, of course, we need to cut not only marginally needed programs like NPR, foreign aid that gets us nothing, and such; but waste in the defense budget, and most importantly entitlements.

We have to learn a new dynamic in this country, recognizes that just being a nice idea or good group does not make something worthy of federal government support. (I've been struggling with my human rights work for years without any government support, and I like things that way.)

It's just like the Rolling Stones told us years back: "You can't always get what you want; but if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need."

[Marc Gunther]

Jeff, I am (sort of) a liberal and (unequivocally) a big fan of NPR. I just sent WAMY a nice donation. But I have to disagree with you. I think NPR is guilty of a liberal bias and ought not to be given government support.

First, bias. How many right of center voices do you hear on NPR? Cokie Roberts does her weekly (mostly conventional wisdom) analysis, on Monday a.m., as I recall. Jim Fallows, who is much smarter, is a regular on the weekends, but not a conservative. (He was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.) Then you have on Fridays E.J. Dionne (definitely left of center) and David Brooks (who I really like but who is also every liberals' favorite conservative, and he voted for Obama). Try this thought experiment: Can you imagine Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee or for that matter Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay being given a regular slot on NPR? I can't. That may be because the powers that be at NPR think they are considered either not highbrow enough, or not serious enough, or not smart enough. But they are legitimate voices from the right. The fact that we can't even imagine them being NPR regulars to me is evidence of liberal bias. It's not just commentary either--when was the last time you heard a story on NPR about a government program that is wasteful or not working well? (Setting aside wars.)

Second, federal funding. My question is, why? Especially in a time of deep deficits. Why NPR and not my blog or yours or the Post or NY Times or Montgomery County Gazette. All are in the public interest, or at least they deem themselves to be. In a world where there are thousands of sources of information on the Internet, dozens of really educational and informative podcasts, CSPAN and the like, I can't see why the govt singles out NPR, PBS, and their stations as worthy of support.

Having said that...I really really like NPR! I listen a lot. I'd hate it if NPR went away. Even without govt funding, I don't think it will. Too many of us value it too much to let it die.

[Luther Jett]

I'm a card-carrying Contrarian, and even so, NPR is one of my primary sources of news. I agree with you, Jeff, that most of the reporting is informed and informative.I like that NPR gets inside a sotry and provides reaspnably deep analysis.

And yet, I have to agree with Marc -- NPR's perspective is slanted toward what I call the Liberal Orthodoxy. It is grounded in a certain set of assumptions about the way the world is. No dishonour -- as you say, Jeff, it's a matter of taste (or perspective).

I would also be saddened if NPR went away -- but why should my tax dollars go to fund NPR and not, say, the Washington Post (to which I subscribe) or the New York Times?

NPR does fill a market-niche after all. Enough people would pay for its product that I think it would survive. At least, I *hope* so!

[Jeff Weintraub]

Richard, Marc, Luther. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Where to begin?

First, I think the discussion about whether or not any of our media should be publicly funded is a fair one to have. Reasonable minds can definitely disagree on that question.

But, of course, that's not really what the discussion was about the other day on the floor of the House of Representatives, was it? It wasn't an opportunity to carefully weigh whether or how we should unwind long-term federal funding from such are large and complex institution. That would be a bit like the government building a new building and then suddenly deciding its not going to pay for any of the operating and maintenance costs. The debate in the House was thrown together quickly without any real deliberation or thought. It was all about sending signals to constituents - many of whom I suspect were not happy with the vote.

Again, reasonable minds can disagree on this, but here's my argument FOR public funding for media like NPR (I'm not as strong an advocate for PBS, which has fewer quality offerings). It's plain to see that American media organizations are in serious trouble financially and, consequently, the quality of their news gathering capabilities has suffered. The list of notable exceptions is getting smaller and smaller, and they, too, are even having a tough time making ends meet. A strong and well-functioning press is something I think we can all agree is critical to America's well being. Can one argue, then, that some form of government support for high-quality, independent journalism is in the public interest? Now, if you want, then, to extend funding beyond just public broadcasting, that would consistent with what I'm saying. But I'm not suggesting that because I don't see any practical way to accomplish that right now - or whether it's a good idea.

If, philosophically, you still feel that it makes no sense anymore (if it ever did) for the federal government to fund public broadcasting, okay. Again, it's as valid a view as mine. But we have to come up with an exit strategy that does not suddenly doom the hundreds of stations and the national public broadcasting content providers and distributors. They have to have a chance to adapt for the future. Otherwise, they will be hard pressed to survive.

I agree, Richard, with your point that "just being a nice idea or good group does not make something worthy of federal government support." But I think NPR is much more, and if you listen, too, I suspect you agree.

On the liberal bias thing, again, I don't really see it. Are there some voices who express opinions that one can classify as "liberal"? Absolutely. Are there others that one can classify as "conservative"? Absolutely. But those are the voices of guests, commentators and others NPR seeks out for quotes in stories - just as most balanced (a relative term, I know) journalism does.

Marc, to your point about trying to imagine some of the conservatives you named being featured on NPR, most of the names on that list are so way out -- Beck, Limbaugh, Buchanan -- that I don't even think responsible conservative media would want them (but they do, because these guys make a lot of money for them). If I could think of any similarly extreme voices at the left end of the political spectrum (the only prominent name that comes to mind is Michael Moore, who makes me crazy, but I don't doubt there are others), I would not want them to represent "liberalism" on NPR either.

Huckabee is an interesting choice. I disagree pretty profoundly with much of what he says, but I think he has something important to say and should be heard in places like NPR. Oh, by the way, here's a link to a feature NPR did on Huckabee a couple of years ago: http://tinyurl.com/46rnd7s. And if you put his name in the NPR search engine, you can see they've given him a lot of attention. And I know I've heard him occasionally on NPR on air. Huckabee is only one example of many "conservative" voices NPR that are thoughtful and important for all of us to hear.

Cheney would also be an interesting choice. If he would appear. I would listen. DeLay? Well, what does he really have to say?

(I don't think of Cokie Roberts as an ideologue, and I really don't think she adds a lot in her weekly spot, where she just repeats stuff that she heard on the Sunday morning talk shows.)

My bias blindness, by the way, doesn't extend to all public radio. When I last paid attention to it (it has been a while), Pacifica Radio struck me as unmistakeably and quite proudly NPR is not Pacifica.

Thanks, guys. This is a very complicated issue and worthy of thoughtful examination. Would that our current political debates treat it that way.