It’s been a busy twenty-four hours on the “defund NPR” beat. Yesterday, the House Rules Committee convened an emergency hearing to send a bill to the floor that would stop federal funding from supporting NPR programming, as well as that of its local affiliates.
Anticipating today’s vote, the White House released a statement this morning strongly opposing passage of the bill. From the statement (via Talking Points Memo):
As part of the President’s commitment to cut spending, the President’s Budget proposed targeted reductions in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides a small amount of funding for NPR, and the Administration has expressed openness to other spending reductions that are reasonable. However, CPB serves an important public purpose in supporting public radio, television, and related online and mobile services. The vast majority of CPB’s funding for public radio goes to more than 700 stations across the country, many of them local stations serving communities that rely on them for access to news and public safety information. Undercutting funding for these radio stations, notably ones in rural areas where such outlets are already scarce, would result in communities losing valuable programming, and some stations could be forced to shut down altogether.
Despite that, the bill—introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn—passed this afternoon with 228 to 192 votes. Now it will move to the Senate, where a Democratic majority has most assuming it won’t land on the president’s desk any time soon.
And yet while we’re happy to see the White House come out in support of NPR and the CPB, the wording might have been stronger. And by stronger, we mean a veto threat.
This bill, as TPM reporter Benjy Sarlin reminds us, is not about reducing the deficit, but is about directly attacking NPR programming. Sarlin writes: “The bill would not reduce the deficit as the funds could be used for administrative costs by local stations instead and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but the White House warns that small rural stations could shut down without federal funding to purchase content.” Read the bill for yourself.
The bill is about scoring points against a right-wing target whose content seems to strike few but Washington’s culture warriors as particularly egregious. And those warriors, tiny cameras and edit suites in hand, can’t even point to NPR’s supposedly biased content to make their case. Instead, they rely on the cheapest tricks of so-called “journalism” to expose the leanings of those behind the scenes—folks who have nothing to do with the content the bill addresses.
As the White House rightly warns, the stakes are very high for rural broadcasters in this debate, many of them needing federal dollars to buy content enough to fill their airwaves. And standing by the principals involved—our core belief in a strong public broadcaster that should be left un-harassed if it’s doing its job—is important. Even if HR 1076 goes nowhere, a strong statement against its intent is needed.
Many have described NPR’s board as weak in its response to the O’Keefe sting—as Jay Rosen said, “They brought a tote bag to a knife fight.” The White House’s statement this morning was something more than a tote bag; maybe a sturdy kind of throw pillow. That won’t do. The president needs to tell Congress that this bill, which makes no dent in the deficit and exists simply to score political points, will not get his signature.
This is going to be a tough and drawn-out fight. If the opposition brings knives, we should fight back with (metaphorical) second amendment force.
This video says it all, really.
#1 Posted by Dan. A., CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 09:12 PM
"If the opposition brings knives, we should fight back ..."
Who are "we"?
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 09:17 PM
The violent metaphors are fine... As long as they advance the liberal cause, that is..
Let a Republican, or (God forbid) a Tea Partier employ such a metaphor, and these "neutral" watchdogs will pee themselves in high-horsed abhorrence.
"We" is accurate, here - the CJR-types are unapologetic partisan leftists of the first order.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 11:34 PM
As has been pointed out MANY times in the past, it's not the metaphor that pulls the trigger, it's the hysteric nonsense behind the metaphor and the calls for necessary violence in response to the nonsense.
"Taking a shot" at a person isn't the problem. Claiming a person wants to kill your grandmother and putting a gun site on his head for a campaign poster is.
Veto is the reality behind the image here. If republicans want to play war games with legislation, then bring out the heavy gun. Veto.
And, if I'm not mistaken, we is more about those who support NPR than it is about those who support liberals or partisan leftists, something Meares does not have a pattern of doing.
PS. If the "leftist CJR bent" so offends anyone, go play on the copious right wing sites you can avail yourself of.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 18 Mar 2011 at 05:57 AM
Thimbles wrote: If the "leftist CJR bent" so offends anyone, go play on the copious right wing sites you can avail yourself of.
padikiller scoffs: What are you doing here, Thimbles?
Is this the best you can do when confronted with Reality?
Vainly try to separate the "metaphor" from the "nonsense behind the metaphor"? Are you kidding me? Seriously?
That's all you've got?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish in showing me the door?
Are you conceding (the indisputable reality) that CJR is a leftist entity? Are you trying to hush criticism of of Joel's use of a violent metaphor? Are you trying to polarize the heated debate even further with a concocted straw man?
We await your elucidation.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 19 Mar 2011 at 09:36 PM
I would have to agree with padikiller. I am unappologetic when it comes to my political stance. I fit the middle in many ways. Mixed views if you may.
While listening to NPR on several occasions I have heard only onesided views and why (if NPR really does represent all of the U.S. through unbias) would things like, "TeaParty or Conservative", cause so much dismay when views towards those focuses are shared.
#6 Posted by Jeremy Bennett, CJR on Sun 20 Mar 2011 at 06:58 AM