On October 22, the Wall Street Journal interviewed the head of NPR and asked, “Why is it important for the government to support public radio?” The answer, “It’s important to building civic society.”
How does taxing people who don’t like something to fund that thing help to build civic society? I can understand how getting voluntary contributions from people to fund something helps build a sense of community. But how does stealing help build civic society?
A writer named Amity Shlaes has written a very readable book called The Forgotten Man. The title refers to a phrase in one of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 campaign speeches in which the future president mentioned “the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.”
For example, if you experience FSD due to high Blood Pressure, Cholestrol and Diabetes can lead to severe psychological repercussions such as lowered self-esteem and altered social image. getting viagra Due to this the arteries and veins in the penile levitra australia region. When these tissues are stretched or discount generic viagra torn… the spine becomes significantly less stable. In fact, an extensive range of medical symptoms and problems can be effectively treated with physical therapy. tadalafil without prescriptions Shlaes points out that the phrase was used decades before the Depression by a Yale philosopher named William Graham Sumner.
“As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X,” wrote Sumner. “Their law always proposes to determine . . . what A, B, and C shall do for X.”
In Roosevelt’s world, the forgotten man is X. In Sumner’s world, the forgotten man is C, who is forced to pay to help X whether he likes it or not — and who often suffers (along with X) when the program cooked up by A and B actually does more harm than good.
Shlaes’ book identifies many forgotten people of the Depression, some rich, some poor. Some were people who the Roosevelt administration persecuted because they were rich, such as Andrew Mellon, a Secretary of the Treasury who reduced tax rates and who the administration attempted to prosecute for taking legal tax deductions. Others were people who the administration persecuted because they ran small businesses, such as the Schechters, a family in New York who sold Kosher chickens in a way that violated the methods of New Deal central planners.
But there were, of course, many others, people “who paid for the big projects, who got make-work instead of real work,” says Shlaes, “who waited for economic growth that did not come.” Shlaes shows that the New Deal did not cure the Depression; it prolonged it. Planners goofed it up then, and they continue to goof it up today.
I can understand how getting voluntary contributions from people to fund something helps build a sense of community. But how does stealing help build civic society?
Most of civil society isn’t thinking like the small-minority ideology. Many of the folks who build things in civic society – architects, landscape architects, creative classers – listen to public radio. And their kids watch Sesame Street and grow up more likely to conceive of why we’d want creative people in our society.
It’s OK to have an educational campaign. Conservatives call for education all the time when they don’t want to fund something or pass a law. A well-informed public will be better able to make informed decisions. That’s what NPR does – inform its public.
See, civil societies are good. The vast majority doesn’t mind being taxed a couple of quarters to contribute to a better-informed civil society. If there is a small minority who doesn’t want to be around people in civil society, they can either move or enjoy the benefits.
DS
This “taxes are theft” business doesn’t work very well for most people, because, as Dan points out, freedom of movement implies that if someone moves to or remains in a certain area, they consent to whatever regulations are constitutionally permitted. Of course, none of that applies to federal level matters, as almost no one enjoys freedom of movement on a national scale, so they cannot leave a country that, for example, forces them to fund something like NPR. A radio program funded at the state level may not be optimal, but it is moral if permitted by the state’s constitution. This is not true for this federal level program in the US, which is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional, and it doesn’t matter if the large-majority adherents of a has-been ideology find it trustworthy, worthwhile, or anything else.
Of all the things required for the building of a civil society I don’t see publicly funded national radio as high on the list. Now add the fact that few listen to it and it becomes less of a societal need and more of a pet project of the elites. I should note I listen to NPR every morning and often at other times but I do not contribute in any way other than through tax subsidies.
A simple test should be applied to all taxes and the programs they support. If you tax the few to benefit the many or tax the many to benefit the few you are on suspect moral ground. It seems the only somewhat moral tax is one that taxes the many to benefit the many. The first two are also more likely to corrupt society.
NPR’s trustworthiness is kind of funny. I think it has more to do with the fact there is congressional oversight than the desire to report the truth. Story selection is where they hang their bias as with most news agencies.
My main issue with NPR is not its news content. It is the fact that in this day and age, there are an enormous number of places in which you can get your news and commentary from. The news market can cater to you even if you are someone who is ideologically inclined, which in my mind obviates the “need” for something like NPR. Sources include newspapers, television stations, other radio stations, bloggers, and the new Internet outlets like Salon Magazine. There are news outlets that cater to ethnic groups. Thanks to the Internet, you can while away hours of your time reading news written in other languages and hordes newspapers in other countries for the cost of an Internet hookup. The plethora of news out there is absolutely incredible.
Here in Houston, NPR is carried by KPFT, a member of the Pacifica radio network. The Pacifica network is supported by listener contributions and does not accept advertising. KPFT has a fairly small market share and only about six percent of listeners (who pay for 95 percent of station expenses) financially support the station. The station has to run pledge drives every six to eight weeks to stay afloat, which is when listeners are inundated with pleas for money. Still, the station has stayed alive since 1970.
I am one of those listeners who donates to KPFT, having given them some $1,000 over the past 3 or so years. I do so in spite of the fact that the bulk of the station’s programming is composed of content which is objectionable to me. The reason I support the station is because they host a music program on Saturday nights which is the only one of its kind in Houston. I have let the station personnel know that if this program is taken off of their roster, then my voluntary contributions are over. In my opinion, NPR should be cut loose from government funding and be told that if it is such a great news network, then it should pay its own way in the world through voluntary methods.
FWIW: I was in Britain earlier this year for my company. While there, we talked about the media one day since there was a pair of flat screen TV sets in the company cafeteria. My counterparts told me that the BBC is financed by a 125 pound per year licensing fee (aka a tax) on owning television sets. My jaw nearly dropped when I heard that one! Did that fact color the way in which the BBC covers UK politics and social issues? Well, according to most of my colleagues there, the answer is yes, the government of the day (whomever it happens to be) sometimes gets a pass on really knotty questions of UK public concern.
NPR has a wide audience and has a lot of ads, why not just let it support itself?
Dan said “Many of the folks who build things in civic society – architects, landscape architects, creative classers -”
Want to add in city planners to that list Dan?
Just FYI, none of the above “build things”. They are hired by people who build things and feed their children because of people who build things.
Neal Meyer comments on the BBC.
There are some problems with the BBC. The license fee is paid by all, so the major problem is whether they should increase their market share by showing more popular programs, or whether they should try to fund programs which are more high-brow.
At the same time, the move to digital TV means that there are more channels available, and so innevitably some people do not want to pay the license fee anymore.
However, the difference between commercial TV news and BBC news is stark. It’s not that the news is different, rather the angle. BBC news is always more thoughtful, whereas commercial TV is always more populist.
I cannot buy the idea that the BBC is beholden to the government. It is, and always has been, very independent.
One of the classic moments of recent times was the interview between Michael Howard, Home Office Minister (responsible for prisons, amongst other things) and Jeremy Paxman, on Newsnight, the late-evening news show. The way the prison system was structured meant that the minister was responsible for strategic matters only, whereas the prisons manager was responsible for day-to-day issues. Itw as alleged that the minister had threatened to over-rule the prisons manager, leading to a prison escape.
Paxman – “Did you threaten to over-rule him?”
Howard – some evasive drivel
Paxman – “Did you threaten to over-rule him?”
and on, and on. Mr. Paxman had and has a repuation for not allowing anyone to duck the question.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight25/4182569.stm
The BBC is still there. And it’s not anything like Fox news – for which we are all very grateful.
none of the above “build thingsâ€Â. They are hired by people who build things and feed their children because of people who build things.
Technically, bankers don’t “build things” either, but the people who “build things” don’t “build things” without the help from lots of people who ensure those who “build things” can “build things”.
DS
I cannot buy the idea that the BBC is beholden to the government. It is, and always has been, very independent.
Bias is often subtle, and often is as much a matter of what is not said as what is. David Boaz of the Cato Institute sums it up nicely here. I don’t see how a bias can be entirely eliminated, and I would expect NPR to naturally attract employees who are hostile to the public sector and love government, so I can’t get myself too worked up about that. All the same, I don’t care to support the idea that one person should be forced to pay for the broadcast of opinions with which they don’t agree.
There are, in my view, three principal persuasive arguments against a federal cash subsidy for NPR.
The first is a free speech argument. It is a violation of a civility, and should be a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution, to require me to pay for speech that I do not agree with. To put this in terms that supporters of NPR can understand: if Bush desired, on a public education rationale, to send federal dollars to Rush Limbaugh so that he could get out his message, how would you feel?
The second argument is that public radio does not fulfill a government function, certainly no function that is anywhere near a core function. If you believe that insufficient public money is being applied to “save social security” or “feed the poor”, it seems hard to justify spending a cent on something like NPR when that money could be applied to core government functions. I certainly doubt that even the most vocal supporters of NPR would assert that support for it would rank as even the 20th or 30th top priority of government.
The third argument is simply social equity. NPR’s listener base is highly educated, affluent people. You can tell that by examining its content and by seeing who advertises (or whatever they call it) on the program. I hear more wealth management “commercials” on NPR than I do on CNBC. Why do we tax cab drivers and roofers so that wealthy Phd recipients can get “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me”? Why is Warren Buffet’s secretary taxed so that he receives subsidized culture. Put more starkly, the entertainment of the middle class is provided by taxed, for-profit entities, while entertainment for the elites is tagged as “culture” and provided by tax subsidized non-profits that even receive direct cash grants.
The fact that NPR receives cash from the government is an example of power over principle, not the other way around.
One can’t help but wonder why the federal theft of the equivalent of one newspaper causes such energy expenditure, accurate accounting, wailing and rending of garments.
The federal theft, however, of the equivalent of a few week’s (or month’s) pay causes silence and accurate counting of the number of crickets chirping in the background. We can’t count how many $ billions have gone missing in our botched imperial adventure or go into 8-9 ag companies’ pockets, but we know that the intellectual elites get something or other.
Had this post originated from certain news agencies or recipients of wingnut welfare it would be understandable. Prioirities, folks.
DS
That’s right Dan, as long as we are wasting money on Sugar subsidies and foriegn aid, we might as well waste money on trains.
One can’t help but wonder why the federal theft of the equivalent of one newspaper…
So, Dan agrees. It’s theft. For the first time ever, we appear to have a consensus.
… rending of garments.
And that was my favorite shirt. Hysteria is an awful thing.