I notice that Democrats are busy mocking as clownish and inconsequential yesterday's vote by House Republicans to cut public funding for NPR. That's good news, because when the Left mocks, it means they are sweating. And the Left does not sweat about radio propaganda, attitudes, and dollars that are inconsequential to the Democrat Party.NPR might very well be "better off in the long run without public funding" as its chief fundraiser, Ron Schiller, famously claimed just last month. But the Democrat Party will not be better off without tax dollars devoted pretty much exclusively to NPR's promotion of the Democrat agenda.
Ron Schiller typified NPR's cultural attitude when he branded the Tea Party as a "scary," "white," "seriously racist," "weird evangelical kind of move" made up of people who aren't "just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic."
Schiller didn't make clear how the intense hatred for people of other countries with which he has stereotyped the Tea Party manages to translate into the millions and millions of dollars in aid given by American conservatives to earthquake and tsunami survivors in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand (2004), in Pakistan (2005), in Haiti (2010) and, of course, in Japan.
About the time that NPR's chief fundraiser was characterizing a large percentage of the American public served by National Public Radio as "undereducated," another proponent of public radio, Sue Schardt, was advising NPR's board and execs (perhaps including Ron Schiller) on how to "address criticism that has undercut its case for continued federal aid." According to Schardt, who is the executive director of a group of 800 media makers in 13 countries, NPR has, for 30 years, followed a "very specific methodology," to "cultivate and build . . . a highly educated, influential audience . . . a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite." An audience that Schardt identified as "11% of America."
Now that many of the remaining 89% of America no longer are inclined to foot part of NPR's bill for their "elite" neighbors, Schardt suggested NPR consider whether or not the franchise of radio stations does indeed "warrant public funding." If not, she suggested, NPR could commit to "serving--truly--and speaking in the voices--truly--of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public." Interestingly, NPR would "set the timetable" for this change in "service."
Thanks but no thanks, NPR. If you and your fellow "white, liberal, highly educated" self-appointed "elite" have finally come around to wanting to "serve" the people whom you scorn--the non-white, conservative, and in your view "under-educated," the supposedly luckless majority who by your definition are "scary xenophobes," I think you should feel free to do it on voluntary donations from your well-heeled "elite" audience. To save trees and energy, you might advise them to skip the middleman and send their contributions directly to the Democrat Party.
Hat tip: How's That Obama Vote Working Out for You???