“As far as the accusations that we’re biased, I’d stand up and say, ‘Please show me a story that concerns you.’”
The infuriatingly dishonest, smug and biased Katherine Maher, head of NPR, on CNN yesterday.
Social media and others, like Senator John Kennedy and Instapundit, are going wild picking obvious examples. Hell, I have a lot of them; here’s one you may have forgotten (I had).
If Congress doesn’t finally strip public funding from NPR and PBS, there is no reason to trust those people to do anything. The Democrats love them because they are permanent propaganda mouthpieces for their party, but what’s the Republicans’ excuse?
Ethics Alarms 
Whenever I get the annual appeal letter in the mail. Using their self addressed, self stamped envelope, which my tax dollar paid for, I remind them that my contribution was made through my federal taxes. and add a plea for the return of “The Car Guys” thanking them for their clasical music programs.
That three-minute clip of Ms. Maher should have seen her trying to exercise her right against self-incrimination.
How’s that song go…?
If your lips are moving, if your lips are moving
If your lips are moving, then you’re lyin’, lyin’, lyin’, baby
NPR and PBS can’t be defunded fast enough. Why should I be taxed to support them? What slanted/biased distortions and lies can I get there that I can’t get from MSNBC and CNN, which I already pay for as part of my TV service.
With a smile on his face, Brandon GRill (sic) totally eviscerated the comically smug, lyin, thievin’ deceivin’ Maher.
PWS
One of my favorites, personally.
Peter Boghossian in a long form discussion about how egregiously biased NPR’s treatment of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI&ab_channel=PeterBoghossian
charles w abbott
rochester NY
I recommend that video series whenever the topic of public radio comes up. Because I have recommended it on several blogs I read, I was trying to remember if I had mentioned it here, and, if so, would it seem weird if I mentioned it again. I’m glad you posted it so I don’t have to.
[Jack] “what’s the Republicans’ excuse?”
“the proposal is facing resistance from several Senate Republicans—particularly those from rural states where public broadcasters play a vital role in emergency communications and local coverage.
“In Maine, this funding supports everything from emergency communications in rural areas to coverage of high school basketball championships,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “There are more constructive ways to address perceived bias than gutting the local broadcasters our communities rely on.”
My understanding of how the financing works is that most NPR stations in urban settings get only a small percentage of federal funding, and will likely be able to rely on their donor base to make up the difference. In rural areas, however, with smaller and sometimes less wealthy donor bases, federal funding makes up a much bigger chunk of their budget, and they are more likely to go under.
I listen to my local NPR station regularly and I agree that their news broadcasts lean left. However, most of the shows I listen to have little to no political content — they focus on music, or interview scientists (Science Friday), or cover local stories. I would definitely miss these programs. And yes, I loved the Car Guys! Also not political.
1. The “Rural American has no media” excuse made sense decades ago; it’s baloney now.
2. PBS and NPR don’t “lean left,” they are unethically partisan whenever possible. The could have reformed, because this has been an issue for decades. They assumed they could get away with it forever.
3. Neither NPR nor PBS have a rural orientation. I’d love to see exactly how many American “depend” on those stations.
Yeah, no one goes to NPR for anything “emergency-related”.
Same with PBS, though I do agree that they run weather-related warnings across the screen and they do show state championship sports and all-state music festivals. But again, there is NOTHING in PBS content that screams “must be funded at the federal level!”
If anything, the federal government should end direct funding of PBS, then take 50% of the current earmarks and divide them up amongst the states based on population. Then tell the states, “Here’s a bit of money to be used to fund a “state-level” PBS-style station, where you can show the girls basketball championships and state dance competitions…and episodes of “Are You Being Served” if there’s money left.”
Why should taxpayers in Alaska have to chip in to pay for programming seen only by Floridians?!?
Better yet, defund PBS completely, return that money to the citizens, and let them band together with the new-found windfall to put a TV station together. If it dies, it wasn’t worth taking my money in the first place.
This kind of stuff is easy. In fact, it’s probably time to write my senator/representative and suggest these things…
Where did this “rural radio stations will be shut down if NPR is defunded” talking point come from? This is analogous to the recent budget bill “cutting Medicaid to poor people” talking point the Dems harped on. Is public radio in every part of the country a human right? Is this some sort of Rural Electrification Act all of a sudden. Local governments don’t get all sorts of federal money for emergency notification systems? This is typical distraction tactic. It misses the point that NPR and PBS are Democrat party operatives, and they shouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers. And they don’t lean left, they are relentlessly, viciously anti anything other than Dem/lefty project. A few words: “Democracy Now” and “Amy Goodman.” That show is on publicly funded outlets and should be called “Stalinism Now.”