With all of the news sources we have in the world today – from big corporate entities to individual bloggers and watchdogs – why does the federal government continue to subsidize with taxpayer dollars PBS and NPR?
Why do these broadcasters alone get major support directly from Washington?
There's an old adage that once a government program starts, it never ends. Maybe these anachronisms are just examples of that truism. Do-gooder programs are endlessly created to make our lives better – or that's the excuse, anyway. And that's how we end up with $18 trillion deficits. The government assumes responsibility for doing more and more in the lives of Americans, empowering itself in the process. Then it actually takes courage by politicians to unwind the programs, which virtually never happens. That's one reason.
Another reason is that government creates dependency – not just for citizens, but for those who work, directly or indirectly, for government. Those who work directly or indirectly for government then have a vested interest in continued government growth, which, one could argue, results in less freedom for Americans.
But PBS and NPR are special cases.
TRENDING: To DEI for
These government-supported news agencies also serve as propaganda arms for government, a reality that should be anathema to all freedom-minded Americans. They blur the definition of the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press.
What raises this controversy anew today?
Following Barack Obama's securing of the necessary votes in Congress for approval of the Iran nuclear deal Wednesday, PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill stepped over the line Wednesday when she tweeted out gleefully and shamelessly the following message: "Take that, Bibi."
That statement would probably result in suspension or worse if it had been blurted out by a corporate news anchor. Not so in the sacred left-wing environment of taxpayer-supported PBS.
Will Ifill pay any price?
So far, she was scolded publicly by the ombudsman of PBS, Michael Getler, a former ombudsman, or internal watchdog, at the Washington Post.
He asked Ifill what she was thinking when she obviously took sides against Israel and for Obama in the international controversy over appeasement of Iran.
"She explained, in an email to me and in a tweet to many others, that she was 'RT'ing a @TheIranDeal tweet,' and added that she 'should have been clearer that it was their argument, not mine.'"
Do you believe that?
Neither did the ombudsman for PBS.
"One would have to lean way over backwards to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was simply shedding light on the administration's view of portions of Netanyahu's arguments," he wrote. "But to personalize it by saying, 'Take that, Bibi' is, in my book, inexcusable for an experienced journalist who is the co-anchor of a nightly news program watched by millions of people over the course of any week. It is not the first time that I have written about Ifill and tweets. Three years ago a tweet supporting a former colleague, who made an inflammatory remark apparently unaware that his microphone had not been turned off, also brought about lots of criticism."
He gently chided: "Ifill is a highly experienced journalist, very quick, alert, knowledgeable, and with an engaging on-air personality. She also has a talented eye for the ironies and political turnabouts in the daily flow of news that contributes to her presence. But PBS and the NewsHour are bigger than any individual, and tweeting does not appear to be a tool, in these cases, that is appropriate for maintaining credibility, which is the bedrock for news organizations."
But that hardly addresses the more fundamental questions: Why does the U.S. government send financial support to two news corporations? Is that really in the national interest? How is that fair for competing news organizations? How does that foster independent watchdog reporting on government fraud, waste, abuse and corruption? Whose interests does that really serve?
And, more importantly, should the U.S. government really be subsidizing what amounts to paid political propaganda disguised as news?
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|