Editorial independence? NPR's argument is full of holes

In a recent article it's been pointed out there's been a lawsuit filed by National Public Radio (NPR) and its affiliates against the Trump administration. This legal action challenges President Trump's executive order aimed at eliminating federal funding for NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Aside from the histrionics about the move being unconstitutional (it's clearly not) it's been alleged that the move hurts editorial independence.

That's laughable on the face of it. On its face, “less government money = more independence.”

Conservatives have been arguing this from a cost-cutting perspective, with a back pocket understanding that NPR is decidedly left-leaning, so why continue to mouth support for it? After all, all the way back to president Clinton, Rush Limbaugh was arguing for us to follow the money. Dollars decide. All true, Clinton, Obama and Let's Go Brandon moved money, bent rules and did what they needed to do in order to empower their own side politically and disenfranchise the other side (us conservatives). Remember the IRS targeting conservative groups? Case in point. 

But while that is all true, I'd like to make another argument that might play a little better in court for the Trump administration. How can NPR argue that cutting it's funding and making it not dependent on government undermines it's editorial independence?  Would that in fact not do exactly the opposite? No donations to have to answer to means absolute editorial independence. 

Simplifying NPRs argument boils it down to 3 points (1) the cuts are punitive since Trump does not like NPRs editorial slant. From their legal perspective, this constitutes retaliation for protected speech, which would violate the First Amendment. (2) The chilling effect of the cuts the fear is that political punishment for editorial decisions could chill independent journalism, especially at the local level. And (3) Most of the federal funds don’t go directly to NPR, they flow through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to local public radio and TV stations, many of which rely heavily on those dollars. If those stations can't survive without federal support, NPR’s broader network would weaken, reducing diversity in voices and coverage—thus indirectly impacting editorial capacity and independence.

Let's tackle these independently. Firstly the idea that they are punitive is irrelevant. There is no unconstitutional action involved. Firstly the president has discretion as to how to administer the funds allocated by congress. That, is constitutional. Secondly they are ascribing the administration's motivation. They cannot possibly know that to be factual.  DOGE is tasked with reducing government waste much more broadly; this is simply part of that mandate to reduce debt and deficit spending. Finally, the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee funding: The government isn't obliged to fund speech just because it exists. Not funding something is not censorship.

Secondly, the argument that this will chill independent journalism is laughable; NPR is not independent journalism.  The move would force them to become independent by not have to answer to those who provide the funding. If they cannot survive without funding, something is fundamentally wrong with their business model; they are not providing something the public wishes to consume. If they were forced to accept advertising, they would be competing on a level footing with all of the other media sources out there. They would be forced to do better in order to attract advertisers, or find more donation-based benefactors. 

Thirdly, the impact on local stations is probably the most relevant argument. Since a good percentage of CPB finances flow through to local stations, there is a case to be made, even from a conservative perspective, that the number of voices would be reduced, possibly dramatically. But who says the CPB needs to be the gatekeeper for those funds? Can the government not create a pool of funds for local stations elsewhere? Or, more ruthlessly, since there are podcasts and YouTube channels and now almost anyone can have a voice (albeit unequal thanks to Google and the plethora of other newer gatekeepers), does local news not deserve the same accountability as NPR? In other words, shouldn't they too subscribe to the idea of having to provide value, to attract eyeballs (or ears) and thus attract advertisers?

Why is there even a special category of public broadcasting? Public broadcasting inherently implies propaganda. Americans are better off without it. Public money always comes with strings; removing funding frees them from potential influence—not the opposite. Again, as for the local stations there are plenty of counterarguments. Chief among them that unlike roads or defense, news has robust competitor solutions in other formats (streaming, podcasts, newsletters). It’s not a pure “public good” that must be taxpayer-built and maintained. Government funding—even “small” grants—inevitably creates dependency, dampens private fundraising incentives, and risks politicizing content through earmarks and appropriations battles. Free-market and philanthropic alternatives, bolstered by digital efficiency, can sustain robust local and national journalism without the use of taxpayer dollars.

Glenn Greenwald: Trump killed the Ukraine bill

This was going to be a straight pass-through of Glenn Greenwald's take on Trump being responsible for congress not passing the bill to use $60B for Ukraine. But I want to add a few thoughts of my own before sharing Greenwald's take.

My take on Ukraine support is this; Russia needs to be stopped.  More precisely, Putin needs to be stopped. BUT, not at all costs. And I'm certainly not in favor of unfettered money being spent on Ukraine when America is facing a border crisis of massive proportions and nothing is being done about that. America is struggling with a debt crisis and nothing is being done about that.  America is facing hidden inflation, a looming recession and nothing seems to be being done about those things either.

There are smarter ways to deal with Putin's imperialism. NATO should contribute more. Europe is far more at risk than America, and should be shouldering the brunt of the cost and effort.  Then there are the banking systems that can be used to  choke Russian access to international markets (as opposed to targeted mini-embargos).  

As for Congress, why meekly submit to an agreement without some pushback? Make Let's Go Brandon back off Texas. Demand border wall funding and construction timetables that, if not adhered to, stop the funds to Ukraine.  That, as a bare minimum.  Add 20 other demands. Negotiate from a point of strength.  This all seems so obvious.  At least Congress was smart enough to say no.  It's a start.

Emergency Funding for the border wall

The path to this outcome was inevitable and the president's end game was well thought through. More on that later.

Catholic? Happy with this?

Via WSJ:

The White House said Thursday it has no plans to reverse course on its decision to require that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans, despite a wave of criticism from Republicans and Catholic leaders.

After a bruising week for health officials on the issue, the White House arranged a conference call with reporters to address what it called “confusion” over the policy. It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

Especially in light of this;

The world's leading breast cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, struggled on Thursday to defuse a growing crisis over its decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services.

The sudden rift between the two top U.S. women's health advocacy groups triggered a furious debate on social media sites between supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

Democratic lawmakers called on Komen to reconsider its move as the organization was thrust into the center of an intractable dispute that some say will hamper its work for years to come.

And much more importantly, the ridiculous hypocrisy of this;

This morning, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama cited Scripture as justification for his policy agenda — from reforming health care to ensuring that financial institutions play by fair rules to taxing the rich.

Catholic?  Vote liberal?  Time for a re-think of either your vote or your religion.  You can't do both.