Author: Alex Zeldin
As the country falls into ever-growing debt, conservative members of Congress have advocated cutting funding to public radio as a way to balance the budget.
While there is no doubt conservatives have long disapproved of National Public Radio (NPR) and perhaps are just using this as a way to kill off something “liberal,” the question should be raised concerning the benefits of using taxpayer money to fund a radio station. That is why we must now test the alternatives.
NPR is the most in-depth, critical broadcast news organization in the United States. The quality of journalism found on NPR cannot be matched by any other national news organization on the radio. There is no doubt that NPR serves a purpose. But is that really a product of being “public?”
If NPR could be the same network with advertisers paying for it, then the idea of public radio is fiscally irresponsible. Does a Toyota commercial mean the stories would change? No one can be sure it does or it doesn’t, but if it doesn’t, the notion of public radio is flat-out wrong.
If this level of journalism can be obtained with advertising (there already is time devoted to mentioning their sponsors who tend to be big corporations, anyway), then it is irresponsible to ask for donations and tax money.
In fact, it’s worse than that. If CBS asked for donations and tax money in the wake of the various rises going on in the world because they wanted fewer commercials, no one would stand for it. They do a fine job already as it is. If a station could run with all current NPR programming intact, yet had Mercedes-Benz commercials, that would be a more socially responsible thing to do than to have taxpayers and donors pay for it.
If that question were asked to executives at NPR, the questioner would be kicked off the premises before they could even begin, the argument being that journalism at their level could not be done with advertisers in the way. But has anyone ever tried it?
Here would be an interesting experiment: set up one station in one city that broadcasts all NPR content, yet has advertising. See what the results are. If people respond in the same way as the current model, public radio should be abolished. If it can’t be done, then NPR should still proceed with the current model.
Even with the current model, NPR should try to find a way to survive without tax dollars. According to the Miami Herald, the average person who listens to NPR is 50 years old, makes 90,000 dollars a year and has received a college degree. If these are the people most affected, then they should pull out their credit cards and fund it themselves rather than taking money from federal property taxes that fall on the poor.
Here’s another good experiment: pull federal funding from NPR for a year. If they can raise enough money to survive, do not re-instill it. If they cannot, give them their money back.
NPR is stuck in a mindset that has never been challenged. Instead of getting into arguments over funding, NPR should try to find a way to operate without taking money from a bankrupt government. The fact they are not even trying to secure financial independence is morally reprehensible. Democrat, Republican, whatever one is, everyone agrees the deficit must shrink.
If NPR either cannot survive or would drastically change without federal support, then they should be federally funded. But this should be a call to all organizations to take a look at themselves and try just a little bit harder to not take federal money (big oil for example). The country is not rich anymore. Let’s stop taking from it.
Alex Zeldin is a junior AHVA major. He can be reached at zeldin@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
