The House voted 228-192 today to stop federal funding for NPR. Only Republicans voted for the bill, many of whom are opposed to the liberal leanings of the radio station and feel that it should pay for itself.
One of the reasons many oppose the bill is because federal funds let public radio operate in really remote places.
Chances are, this Bill will not pass in the Democratic controlled Senate.
Doesn't it make sense that at this point NPR should be funding itself, not using government funds? They would still be able to use federal funding for operating expenses, so it's not as if they would be cut off entirely.
More here.
I tend to agree. I personally really enjoy NPR's programming, but why should they benefit from government funds while other networks shouldn't? I know that some scholars advocate for more public funding as a way to maintain the independence of journalists who may be trying to go against corporate ownership, but i do have to question why any news outlet deserves to have public funding.
ReplyDeleteI think you might have a point. Since NPR has the means of being able to function without government funding I guess it would make sense to allocate the money elsewhere. In response to Noelle, I think if the news outlet delivers more of a centrist oriented news then I do not see an issue of it receiving public funding. If it serves for the interest of the public, then why wouldn't public funding go towards financing it?
ReplyDelete