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.

What's next in the Letitia James debacle?

Possibly this:

And yes, this is her debacle, not a Trump legal issue.  It's a Letitia James debacle.

Kevin O'Leary shark tanks CNN host over the debacle Trump fraud trial

If there has been any fraud it has been in the New York legal system's sham of a trial. Via Jimmy Dore:

New York case against Trump falling apart

Tim Pool briefly discusses it:

This case will fail, but probably not before the 2024 election and certainly not with this judge. It's a mistake the left will pay for eventually.

Let's Go bailout?

I've got a lot going on right now, most of it of the headache variety, so I hope you'll excuse the brevity of the posts today.  There are a few things worth discussing that I don't have the bandwidth to discuss, so I'm just going to share some videos on the various topics.

First up, the attempt to buy votes with a ridiculous and likely not legal student loan bailout. 

The legal battle continues

 We are in uncharted territory here:

Guilty Hillary; legal definition ignored

Bill Whittle looks at the legal statutes.  According to FBI Director Comey's answers, by the book, Hillary is guilty of imprisonable offenses. So why is she going to go free? Bill Whittle answers that too and the answer is not the Justice Department.

Politicizing the Automotive Bankruptcies

Uh oh. Chrysler's debtors are taking the bankruptcy proceedings to court on the basis that they were preferred creditors and they got less than the auto workers did, so they feel that it is an unfair bankruptcy. They feel the Executive branch of the federal government - the Obama administration - used undue influence to set the conditions of the managed bankruptcy in favor of those it favored.

It further politicizes the bankruptcy/bailout proceedings that President Obama politicized in the first place by trying to control the entire process. This is something that should not have been politicized in the first place. But now that it has been, there's no going half way.

It's a parallel to selectively releasing Guantanamo 'torture' information. The President wanted to release the bad details there but not the whole story. Withholding some of the truth is tantamount to lying. In the case of the Chrysler bankruptcy, there's no half way either. Since it's been politicized to benefit one group over another, there's no shame in the injured party trying to defend its interests in a court of law.

There are other aspects to this story now. For example, the Chrysler situation might serve as a test case for the GM situation. Obviously everyone involved has a vested interest in seeing specific outcomes. The outcome could indeed impact the eventual sale of Chrysler to Fiat.

But don't count on anything happening to derail this deal. While it's going to go to the supreme court, it's not going anywhere, despite the frequent split court. Why? The primary review will be managed by Justice Ginsberg, who doesn't need to bring it before the entire Supreme Court. She can decide on her own how to deal with this issue.

Ginsberg? This is going to go nowhere. Well, it was a nice try.

United States Constitution: 2nd Ammendment

United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's keep this simple, instead of arguing over what the first half of the sentence means, focus on the right the Amendment imparts. Whether the purpose of the Amendment was for the purposes of a militia or not is immaterial - the right is explicitly stated.

The reason: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

The right: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple - the right is stated. No other amendment is subject to the requirement that the rationale for it's inclusion is justifiable. Even so, the rationale is stated - freedom. That is rationale enough, one would think. Likely the reason the right was second in the Bill of Rights was because of it's importance.

Perhaps it is for the express purpose that it was a little more controversial, even then, that a rationale was provided. However, the right is written in the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution. The argument for weapons bans should be a tough road to travel and inevitably should not be successful.

The right to acquire arms however is another story. The rationale for background checks is reasonable, especially since 9/11. Certain people, those who pose a potential risk to the life and liberty of others, should not find it a simple task to obtain weapons. And where they are a proven threat, it should be impossible. Then, there's everyone else.

Border Security basics

Let's start with the basics:

The United States of America, is a nation. Dictionary.com has as it's primary definition of nation, the following:

a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own

And according to the American Heritage Dictionary, sovereignty is defined as

A nation or state's supreme power within its borders. A government might respond, for example, to criticism from foreign governments of its treatment of its own citizens by citing its rights of sovereignty.

Dictionary.com, "sovereignty," in The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Source location: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereignty. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: January 06, 2009.

The United States, according to these definitions, has a sovereign right as a nation to take actions as a nation that are in the best interest of its citizens. By extension, it's 'legal' citizens. Furthermore, those actions will need to take many forms. National Security is an important aspect of the responsibilities of the U.S. government, which in itself covers a broad spectrum of things from National Defense to cryptography. But the security of the nation is also dependent on secure borders.

For example, it is necessary to ensure that drugs are not smuggled into the country. It is important to ensure terrorists cannot enter the country. It's important to ensure hazardous materials and spoiled food products and killer bees do not enter the country. There are myriad examples why control of one's own borders is imperative for national security, and of course, those things, as best as possible are all legitimately screened upon entry. So why not people?

Would it not be in the nation's sovereign interest to ensure that people enter legally, and those who enter legally are chosen for the right reasons? Whether those reasons are political asylum, needed labor skills or because of family ties, is a secondary issue (important, but for another time to discuss). And if it's true that the United States must act in it's sovereign interests as a nation, then it must control the flow of immigration and to a less direct extent, emigration at it's borders.

Whether someone arrived illegally today, or 6 years ago, the same underlying principle applies - the US must protect it's citizens in every way necessary, and illegal immigration can cause a number of problems for citizens (potential crime, potential cost burdens, employment displacement, and many others). Therefore the government MUST intercede at the border to ensure that those entering the country are on legitimate visitor visas (These include the B1, H1B, L1, E1, and E2 visas.) or are legally existing or becoming citizens or have Green Cards. It's the government's job to do this.

Border Security Temperature Check.

Having a porous border security system has allowed by some accounts 12 million illegal immigrants to be in the country. That's approximately 4% of the existing US Government census population. 1 in 25 people are in the country illegally, and roughly 57% of those illegal immigrants are from Mexico, and another 24% from Latin American countries. Combined that is about 9.7 million people. How many are in jobs illegally? How many are criminals? How many require medical attention annually, or subsidized schooling? Obviously if the US were connected by a common border with Asia, the demographics of the illegal immigrants would be vastly different. It's not about being xenophobic - it's about managing your national resources and your economy and enforcing your laws within the boundaries of your own sovereignty. There are obvious costs and there are hidden costs.

The national interest is not served by having them in the country simply because they want to be in America (yet still identify as Mexican/Chilean/Venezuelan/etc. in many cases). And this is a potentially gaping hidden cost. If you have an electrical engineer from Columbia who wants to get into America legally but cannot because of a quota, that quota is established based on what America believes it can handle in a given year. If 25,000 less illegals were here, another legitimate, skilled laborer could be in a job in America that might otherwise go unfilled.

Personally, I'd rather see a skilled tradesman with a Green Card working for Delta than an unskilled laborer working in an agriculture field making sub-minimum wage by an employer skirting the law in order to compete on price for his lettuce heads. And to argue that those lettuce heads will go unpicked otherwise is a misguided argument. The company will either use higher paid labor or find an American willing to work at below minimum wage to do the same job. We keep hearing they don't exist, but I'm sure they do. Alternately, the market-warping minimum wage could be abandoned or modified at least.

Immigration itself is not a bad thing, so long as the existing infrastructure can cope with the growth. Illegals make that growth harder to control and can only be offset by reducing the number of legitimate entrants.

Southern border security has been beefed up.

[Graphs below are from the Congressional Research Service Report For Congress - Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol]

Border Patrol Appropriations have also risen dramatically.

Yet attacks on border patrol agents have gone up. Hopefully because of an increased presence and therefore increase exposure to illegal immigrants and not because of an increasingly violent migrant population.

And more importantly apprehensions have gone down.

The problem is that increasing border patrols isn't working. An estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants per year are entering the country, with no downturn in sight except for successful apprehensions. Money and bodies aren't the problem - the effectiveness of the methods being used is the problem. A better method exists for border security. One that works well with Obama's promised mega-super-duper-infrastructure-spending-pallooza.

Tomorrow I will continue with Part 2 - What to do about the border.