Juan Williams versus the National Public Radio
http://hebronics.org/index.html
It has always been a mystery to me as to why the U.S. Government has any part in subsidizing any news media. Few people in this country realize just how much taxpayer money is spent annually on the commercial news media.
First, let me explain that philosophically, I am an ultra conservative. National Public Radio is very liberal as is Juan Williams. I do not like Williams stand on politics or politicians, but I firmly believe he has a right to believe and comment about what he likes.
About a week ago, Williams appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show and in their discussion, Williams made he following remark:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," he said. "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." (CBSnews.com)
Subsequently, Williams was fired by the NPR vice president, and here is his remarks to Fox News as to that incident:
Williams told Fox News that he was fired Wednesday by Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news. He said Weiss told him he made a bigoted statement and crossed a line.
"I said, 'You mean I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball-to-eyeball, person-to-person, have a conversation? I've been there more than 10 years,‘ Williams said. He said Weiss responded that ‘there's nothing you can say that would change my mind." (FoxNews.com)
This is nothing short of censorship and violation of his constitutional rights. I never though I would be one to defend Juan Williams, but in this case I do and I feel the same as he does. Certainly, U.S. taxpayers money should not be used to censor the freedom of speech.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the parent company of PBS and NPR, received $420 million from the federal government in 2010 and has requested $608 million for the next funding cycle. I know, these broadcasting companies are partially sustained by public contributions and I give them credit, in many cases, they have some of the best music available anywhere. But taxpayer subsidy? I disagree with that. Their news is, and has always been, slanted. And to censor Williams for the truthful remarks he made is absolutely ridiculous.
If they want to engage in censorship, they should pay attention to their programming. I once encountered a program of theirs with some of the most vulgar talk in it of any I could ever remember.
And aside from these so-called “public” broadcasting systems, the U.S. Government has always subsidized the private news media. A bad mistake. When they are recipients of funds or relieved of certain mailing costs and taxes, and then blatantly disparage one political party or the other, it is wrong! I certainly do not want my taxes going to help sustain the hardball liberal rhetoric and certainly the liberals do not want to subsidize the conservatives.
Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service has subsidized the mailing costs of newspapers and magazines plus other “second class” trash mail since the Postal Act of 1792?
Less well known is just how large this subsidy was – and how much it has shrunk. As recently as the late 1960s, the government was forgiving roughly three-fourths of print publications' periodical mailing expenses, at a cost of about $400 million annually (or, adjusted for inflation, about $2 billion today). Much of that disappeared with the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 and in subsequent cutbacks. But the Post Office still discounts the postage cost of periodicals by about $270 million a year.
Postal subsidies, though, are just the start of the story. Federal and state governments forego about $890 million a year on income and sales tax breaks to the newspaper industry, most of it at the state level. The actual figure is probably much higher because many states don't report tax expenditure details.
Another major form of government support comes through public-notice requirements, which also have their roots in colonial America. These laws require cities, counties and school districts, along with state and federal agencies, to buy advertising space in newspapers to disclose a range of government actions – such as plans for a new school. Take a look at the Wall Street Journal, for example, and you’ll usually find a page or more of federally paid and mandated ads – in impossibly small print -- announcing property seizures. Those are public notices, and nationwide they bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue (ojr.org)
With our nation in the throes of death from exorbitant spending and indebtedness, it looks as if this would be a very excellent spot to start reducing our pay outs. Not much but ever little bit helps.
Article submitted Friday, October 22, 2010 & read 19 times.
Please log in to leave your comments.
» left by Linda DeWitt (1 year 197 days ago.)
I agree with you about the firing of Juan Williams. I too do not agree with his politics but I do believe he is a man of great character. Until this came up I had no idea the government supported NPR or PBS I just assumed it was funded by grants and public donations, of course I never gave it much thought. Thank you for an informative article.» left by Anonymous (1 year 197 days ago.)
Thank you Linda, for reading and commenting. You know, there are enough of this sort of thing going on to balance our budget if they were just stopped. I'm going to make it a point to dig into millions of places our dollars go, and just see how many I can come up with. Joel...it's me even though it says anonymous.
