Moor vs. Moor: Government Killed the Radio Star

The House of Representatives recently voted to cut government funding for the liberal-biased National Public Radio. This issue brings up the question of whether or not government-supported institutions should have content with any bias.

Though silencing the liberal-biased news reporting of the National Public Radio (NPR) was not the Republicans’ official reason for cutting NPR’s funding, the House of Representatives’ decision sent the message, intended or not, that free speech can be suppressed by manipulating legislation and money. Those who voted for the measure say that this decision would save taxpayer money; however, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that there would be no net savings from cutting spending on NPR. A more likely reason for House Republicans’ hostility is their long-standing grudge against NPR’s liberal slant—they were considerably colder toward NPR after Executive Ron Schiller was caught on film calling the Tea Party “scary” and “racist” in an elaborate sting operation set up by conservative journalist James O’ Keefe.
In this case, these Republicans are only attempting to deprive Americans of a media outlet and a reliable source of news. By cutting funds from NPR because it has a bias, they violate the freedom of the press—whether government-funded or not, NPR does have the protection of the First Amendment as a news organization. NPR is an example of the thriving media and expression of opinion in America, and should continue to be funded by the government that claims to protect that precious right.
Catherine Chiang,
Opinions Editor
———————————————————————————————————————————————
In our country’s state of economic crisis, it is a wise step for the government to cut the $90 million dollars that goes into NPR. As the means for informing on the subject of politics is not solely confined to the radio to begin with, this would not be as much of a loss as it seems.
With budget cuts left and right affecting our schools, prisons and communities collectively, it would be almost a luxury to have such an expensive radio station funded by the government–a luxury for those who are represented positively in light of the broadcast. Many Republicans called foul play when NPR’s CEO was “caught” in what seemed to be an edited sound clip of himself commenting on the Tea Party when confronted with an undercover conservative activist. When there are people behind the curtain attempting to fool the audience with tricks such as these, listeners do not have a clear sense of who their broadcasters and respective parties are.
Republicans have also complained about the liberal slant of NPR, meaning that there isn’t an accurate representation of voices in the political scene.
In addition, NPR only receives about 5.8% of its funding from federal and local government, according to their website. If funds were to be cut completely, it wouldn’t exactly cripple the organization.
Daisy Prom,
Opinions Editor