I watched that on CSPAN 2.
$
--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> David Boaz
> Executive Vice President
> Cato Institute
> before the
> Committee on Appropriations
> Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related
> Agencies
> United States Senate
> July 11, 2005
> "Ending Taxpayer Funding for Public Broadcasting"
> ____________________________________
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to testify on taxpayer funding for the
> Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by extension for National
Public Radio and
> the Public Broadcasting System. I shall argue that Americans should
not be
> taxed to fund a national broadcast network and that Congress should
therefore
> terminate the funding for CPB.
> We wouldn't want the federal government to publish a national
newspaper.
> Neither should we have a government television network and a
government radio
> network. If anything should be kept separate from government and
politics, it's
> the news and public affairs programming that informs Americans about
> government and its policies. When government brings us the news --
with all the
> inevitable bias and spin -- the government is putting its thumb on
the scales of
> democracy. Journalists should not work for the government.
Taxpayers should
> not be forced to subsidize news and public-affairs programming.
> Much of the recent debate about tax-funded broadcasting has
centered on
> whether there is a bias, specifically a liberal bias, at NPR and
PBS. I would
> argue that bias is inevitable. Any reporter or editor has to choose
what's
> important. It's impossible to make such decisions without a
framework, a
> perspective, a view of how the world works.
> As a libertarian, I have an outsider's perspective on both liberal and
> conservative bias. And I'm sympathetic to some of public
broadcasting's biases,
> such as its tilt toward gay rights, freedom of expression, and
social tolerance
> and its deep skepticism toward the religious right. And I share
many of the
> cultural preferences of its programmers and audience, for theater,
> independent cinema, history, and the like. The problem is not so
much a particular bias
> as the existence of any bias.
> Many people have denied the existence of a liberal bias at NPR and
PBS. Of
> course, the most effective bias is one that most listeners or
viewers don't
> perceive. That can be the subtle use of adjectives or frameworks --
for
> instance, a report that "Congress has failed to pass a health care
bill" clearly
> leaves the impression that a health care bill is a good thing, and
Congress has
> "failed" a test. Compare that to language like "Congress turned back a
> Republican effort to cut taxes for the wealthy." There the listener
is clearly
> being told that something bad almost happened, but Congress "turned
back" the
> threat.
> A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports
on racism,
> sexism, and environmental destruction. David Fanning, executive
producer of
> "Frontline," PBS's documentary series, responds to questions of
bias by
> saying, "We ask hard questions to people in power. That's anathema
to some people
> in Washington these days." But there has never been a "Frontline"
documentary
> on the burden of taxes, or the number of people who have died because
> federal regulations keep drugs off the market, or the way that
state governments
> have abused the law in their pursuit of tobacco companies, or the
number of
> people who use guns to prevent crime. Those "hard questions" just
don't occur to
> liberal journalists.
> Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know that
Americans of all
> races live longer, healthier, and in more comfort than ever before in
> history, or that the environment has been getting steadily cleaner.
> In Washington, I have the luxury of choosing from two NPR stations. On
> Wednesday evening, June 29, a Robert Reich commentary came on. I
switched to the
> other station, which was broadcasting a Daniel Schorr commentary.
That's not
> just liberal bias, it's a liberal roadblock.
> In the past few weeks, as this issue has been debated, I've noted
other
> examples. A common practice is labeling conservatives but not
liberals in news
> stories -- that is, listeners are warned that the conservative
guests have a
> political agenda but are not told that the other guests are
liberals. Take a
> story on the Supreme Court that identified legal scholar Bruce Fein
correctly
> as a conservative but did not label liberal scholars Pamela Karlan
and Akhil
> Amar. Or take the long and glowing reviews of two leftist agitprop
plays, one
> written by Robert Reich and performed on Cape Cod and another
written by
> David Hare and performed in Los Angeles. I think we can be
confident that if a
> Reagan Cabinet official wrote a play about how stupid and evil
liberals are -
> the mirror image of Reich's play - it would not be celebrated on
NPR. And then
> there was the effusive report on Pete Seeger, the folksinger who was a
> member of the Communist Party, complete with a two-hour online
concert, to launch
> the Fourth of July weekend.
> And if there were any doubt about the political spin of NPR and
PBS, it was
> surely ended when a congressional subcommittee voted to cut the
funding for
> CPB. Who swung into action? Moveon.org, Common Cause, and various
left-wing
> media pressure groups. They made "defending PBS" the top items on
their
> websites, they sent out millions of emails, they appeared on radio
and television
> shows in order to defend an effective delivery system for liberal
ideas. Public
> broadcasters worked hand in glove with those groups, for instance
linking
> from the NPR website to those groups' sites.
> There are many complaints today about political interference in
CPB, PBS,
> and NPR. I am sympathetic to those complaints. No journalist wants
political
> appointees looking over his shoulder. But political interference is
entirely a
> consequence of political funding. As long as the taxpayers fund
something,
> their representatives have the authority to investigate how the
taxpayers'
> money is being spent. Recall the criticism directed at PBS in 1994 for
> broadcasting Tales of the City, which has gay characters. Because
of the political
> pressure, PBS decided not to produce the sequel, More Tales of the
City. It
> appeared on Showtime and generated little political controversy
because Showtime
> isn't funded with tax dollars. Remove the tax funding, and NPR and
PBS would
> be free from political interference, free to be as daring and
innovative and
> provocative as they like.
> One dirty little secret that NPR and PBS don't like to acknowledge
in public
> debate is the wealth of their listeners and viewers. But they're
happy to
> tell their advertisers about the affluent audience they're
reaching. In 1999
> NPR commissioned Mediamark Research to study its listeners. NPR then
> enthusiastically told advertisers that its listeners are 66 percent
wealthier than the
> average American, three times as likely to be college graduates,
and 150
> percent more likely to be professionals or managers.
> But perhaps that was an unusual year? Mediamark's 2003 study found
the same
> pattern. As NPR explained, based on the 2003 study:
> Public radio listeners are driven to learn more, to earn more, to
spend
> more, and to be more involved in their communities. They are
leaders and decision
> makers, both in the boardroom and in the town square. They are more
likely
> to exert their influence on their communities in all types of ways
- from
> voting to volunteering
>
> Public radio listeners are dynamic - they do more. They are much
more likely
> than the general public to travel to foreign nations, to attend
concerts and
> arts events, and to exercise regularly. They are health conscious,
and are
> less likely to have serious health problems. Their media usage
patterns
> reflect their active lifestyles, they tend to favor portable media
such as
> newspapers or radio.
>
> As consumers, they are more likely to have a taste for products
that deliver
> on the promise of quality. Naturally, they tend to spend more on
products
> and services.
>
> Specifically, the report found, compared with the general public, NPR
> listeners are
> * 55 percent less likely to have a household income below
$30,000
> * 117 percent more likely to have a household income above
$150,000
> * 152 percent more likely to have a home valued at $500,000 or
more
> * 194 percent more likely to travel to France
> * 326 percent more likely to read the New Yorker
> * 125 percent more likely to own bonds
> * 125 percent more likely to own a Volvo.
>
> PBS has similar demographics. PBS boasts that its viewers are
> * 60 percent more likely to have a household income above
$75,000
> * 139 percent more likely to have a graduate degree
> * 98 percent more likely to be a CEO
> * 132 percent likely to have a home valued at $500,000 or more
> * 315 percent more likely to have stocks valued at $75,000 or
more
> * 278 percent more likely to have spent at least $6000 on a
foreign
> vacation in the past year.
> Tax-funded broadcasting is a giant income transfer upward: the
middle class
> is taxed to pay for news and entertainment for the upper middle
class. It's
> no accident that you hear ads for Remy Martin and "private banking
services"
> on NPR, not for Budweiser and free checking accounts.
> Defenders of the tax-funded broadcast networks often point out that
only
> about 15 percent of their funding comes from the federal government.
Indeed, NPR
> and PBS have been quite successful at raising money from foundations,
> members, and business enterprises. Given that, they could certainly
absorb a 15
> percent revenue loss. Businesses and nonprofit organizations often
deal with
> larger revenue fluctuations than that. It isn't fun, but it happens.
In a time
> of $400 billion deficits, Congress should be looking for
nonessential spending
> that could be cut. Tax-funded broadcasting is no longer an infant
industry;
> it's a healthy $2.5 billion enterprise that might well discover it
liked
> being free of political control for a paltry 15 percent cut.
> Finally, I would note that the Constitution provides no authority
for a
> federal broadcasting system. Members of Congress once took
seriously the
> constraints imposed on them by the Constitution. In 1794 James
Madison, the father of
> the Constitution, rose on the floor of the House and declared that
he could
> not "undertake to lay his finger on that article of the Federal
Constitution
> which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence,
> the money of their constituents." In 1887, exactly 100 years after the
> Constitution was drafted, President Grover Cleveland made a similar
point when he
> vetoed a bill to buy seeds for Texas farmers suffering from a
drought, saying he
> could "find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
> Things had changed by 1935, when President Roosevelt wrote to
Congress, "I hope
> your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however
> reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." I suggest that this
committee take
> note of the fact that no article of the Constitution authorizes a
national
> broadcast network.
> Even if this committee comes to the conclusion that taxpayer
funding for
> radio and television networks is imprudent and constitutionally
unfounded, I
> recognize that you may hesitate to withdraw a funding stream that
stations count
> on. In that regard, I would note again that federal funding is only
about 15
> percent of public broadcasting revenues. But you might also phase
out the
> funding, perhaps on a five-year schedule. The total funding request
for this
> year is about $500 million. Congress might decide to reduce it by
$100 million
> a year, leaving the CPB entirely free of federal taxpayer funding at
the end
> of five years.
> But Congress's resolve in such matters is not trusted. Recall the 1996
> Freedom to Farm Act, which likewise promised to phase out farm
subsidies. Barely
> two years had passed when Congress began providing "emergency
relief payments"
> to make up for the scheduled reductions. This time, if Congress
pledges to
> phase out broadcasting subsidies, it needs to make sure that its
decision
> sticks.
> A healthy democracy needs a free and diverse press. Americans today
have
> access to more sources of news and opinion than ever before.
Deregulation has
> produced unprecedented diversity-more broadcast networks than
before, cable
> networks, satellite television and radio, the Internet. If there
was at some
> point a diversity argument for NPR and PBS, it is no longer valid.
We do not
> need a government news and opinion network. More importantly, we
should not
> require taxpayers to pay for broadcasting that will inevitably
reflect a
> particular perspective on politics and culture. The marketplace of
democracy should
> be a free market, in which the voices of citizens are heard, with
no unfair
> advantage granted by government to one participant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
