I love #Libertarianism, but absolute economic libertarianism is nuts. The social stuff is pretty good, but economic?
What inspired me to write today is an episode of Ron Paul's Liberty Report; they were talking about how Trump wants to stop funding NPR and PBS due to them being biased.
As a free market, absolutist. Ron Paul, of course, says, well, we should just never fund them in the first place.
The only thing I can say in favor of PBS is that I've seen a lot of programming on there that's quality and great for families that I've never seen anywhere else, but I don't really know why the private sector couldn't fulfill that role.
NPR, on the other hand, is an extremely valuable resource, if it is not biased.
A resource that just can't work in the private world. How can non-biased news succeed in a world where lies a manipulation are going to win the attention of everyday people?
If the money is not there to support it, then the private industry can't handle it. And we have to fund these things publicly if we want real useful news. Conversely, I mean, if people aren't watching it enough for it to fund itself, then are enough people going to watch it?
That's a great question. But if I could just say, "hey, go listen to the NPR stream." They're going to tell you exactly what you need to hear. We'd be far better off.
And this is exactly why libertarian economics cannot work. Yeah, we should fund very, very few things. However, If the private sector cannot make it happen, and it's a valuable resource, then the public sector needs to do it.
#politics #debate #Philosophy #libertarian #grownostr
Replies (13)
But is NPR biased?
We sometimes listen to the local npr station.
I should listen more often, but when I do, I often hear news framed to support one side of any given issue.
They don't have a bunch of people yelling at each other or being direct about it, but the bias is there.
I used to listen to 780am Chicago when I lived within range of it. It's a CBS station that mostly read news headlines, maybe a small summery, weather, and the time.
I'd say that station is (was? It's been a minute...) less biased. And maybe even some evidence against my claim that the private sector can't handle it. However, I assume they don't report on things unfavorable to their sponsers .
Anyway, yea, NPR tends to be politically biased, but they do have some protection against ad revenue bias.
Even in my dream world NPR ends up biased towards the money flow (government in general), but being biased towards the public is our best case scenario.
I turned on the NPR and already have an example.
"President trump, without evidence, claimed X"
"Without evidence" can only be put there to incite doubt.
I'm both libertarian and a long-time NPR listener... First, on the "bias" question, I personally don't find significant left-right bias in NPR news coverage. Sure, they're not going to be seeking out the "libertarian perspective" on the issues of the day, but I can get that from other outlets like Reason.
PBS news coverage I have found to be more left-leaning in general, thus I tend to prefer outlets like BBC for basic fact-based "world news" reporting.
On the funding question: It's important to state that actual federal funding accounts for ~1% of NPR's budget. PBS might be larger, but it's also a mix of federal and state funding. Donations "from listeners like you" make up the bulk of it in both cases.
So, while I'm not going to "go to the barricades" to protect 1% of NPR's budget, I am dismayed that the Right has consistently gone after these "soft targets" like NPR, PBS, USAID, etc... Meanwhile the real "waste fraud and abuse" is in the Pentagon, c.f. the disastrous F-35 program.
Wait... is it really only 1%?
If that's true, my whole argument falls apart.
I can't imagine it's all funded by "sponsers like us"
I'd expect NPR to get the larger government chunk with PBS getting the larger donation pool. Especially with all those "Will your estate to us!" ads.
Guess I'll look into that.
As for bias, maybe different local NPR stations are different, but when I tune in, and it is somewhat Trump related, there is typically negative bias.
Yeah it's ~1%.
"Bias" is a tricky thing post-Trump... I mean when he says something that's simply incorrect, wrong, or an obvious lie, is it "bias" when you don't bring in someone nutjob to say "Trump's actually right about that"?
That being said, they frequently interview Congresspeople or Administration officials who "toe the line" on whatever ridiculous thing Trump is spouting at the moment, and (I feel at least) the reporters question that appropriately.
I figure you just don't offer an opinion.
"The time is currently 07:07am, President Trump claims that the moon has been colonized by xyglorgs. Today's forcast is mostly sunny with a 30% chance of rain."
If interviewing biased guests, interview guests from both sides. Just today I heard a round table discussion on how trump is bad/wrong about his view of the Signal issue. That's trying to steer political thought against the current admin.
As for funding...
In 2008 it was about 16%
https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php
I didn't see anything recent, but it looks like they get around 7-16 percent, pending on the year.
you may be right about direct funding i have seen that number.
Just found this:
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/
Aparently in 2020 up to 24% as that number comes from
"10% from foundation donations; 10% from university licensing and donations; and 4% from federal, state, and local governments via member stations."
or as low as 4 percent.
Remember, direct government funding doesn't include NPM funding which sends money to PBS and NPR. Nor any federal funding that passes through other organizations, but NPM is the big one.
I haven't read tge defunding bill, but if it is only direct funding, they will be fine.
"The time is currently 07:07am, President Trump claims that the moon has been colonized by xyglorgs. Today's forcast is mostly sunny with a 30% chance of rain."
Really? So you don't think that journalism has any role in fact-finding? What, it's just supposed to repeat whatever someone says without even attempting to verify it?
So the next part -- "Today's forecast" -- they could just say "well the National Weather Service says it's going to be mostly sunny, but the crazy person outside of my apartment says that today is the day Blue Hellfire will Reign from the Skies.... Reporting both sides, NPR"
Framing things one sided and always choosing people who will support that side is hardly journalism.
But mostly, just report on interesting things (subjective to NPR and trending things) and attribute things to their sources. Don't make claims without proof.
If they want to report on crazy weather guy, they can. When they give weather, name the source. Which radio usually does anyway.
and when they say, "blah blah, without evidence, blah" it is not a fact check, but an opinion statement, claimed as fact.
Opinions are not a form of fact checking, and that's the bias I argue against.
By all means, "Trump ordered the assassination of Hillary Clinton" They report that and it's balanced. But add "without cause" and it is no longer balanced.
I want the public to hear raw news that they interpret rather than be told what to think.
Sure, bring on guests from multiple political backgrounds to say their piece, but the host has to remain neutral.
Think of it like police reporting.
Describe what happened. Don't guess, don't add extra information, don't try to infer intent.
Or, don't take government money and do what you want.
Most advertisers won't support people who speak against them, why would the government be any different?
I will admit I do personally find the "claimed without evidence" line to be somewhat pedantic at times, even though in most instances it's warranted IMO.
But I think the idea of journalism just being a "police blotter"-like RSS feed falls short of what most people expect and demand from their journalistic instiutions, which is to find facts and holds people in power (especially those in government) accountable for claims that are made when those claims contradict known facts of reality.
So let's say "Trump claimed there are Mexican rapists on the moon" is a fact. However NPR knows another fact that there are NOT, indeed, rapists on the moon. Or, if we want to be really unbiased, "there is no evidence for Mexican rapists on the moon."
Which fact(s) should be reported to NPR's audience?
I would frame it as an assertion or claim.
"Trump claims x" is fine.
"We find it hard to believe, but Trump claims x" I can even get behind.
But, "Trump falsely claims x" is a problem.
The first two make no factually framed claims, but the third does.
Even, "Trump truthfully claims x" is a problem if they don't have some sort of evidence to back it up.
We can't so much prove something is false, we can only prove things as true.
Btw, I'm enjoying these absurd situations, they're fun and illustrate points well. ^-^
Most of the funding for NPR and PBS already comes voluntarily via donations. Only ~5% comes from the tax payer funded "Corporation for Public Boradcasting"
Well it's that and other indirect methods. So if they get X amount directly, X from CPB, X from NPM, X from universities to support NPR...
It really doesn't matter.
If "defunding" includes indirect funding, it's a problem for NPR.
If it doesn't, it's a non-issue.
