Juan Williams Fired from NPR

I think you could make all kinds of arguments about the value of and the return on the investment of a good college education.

Does the state have an interest in having an educated citizenry? Does a college bring in jobs that would not otherwise be there? Does a school prevent a brain drain?

Look at the businesses that have spring up around and because of places like Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard/MIT, or Michigan.

Would anyone stay in state or come from out of state to a state like Michigan right now if it didn't have a top University?

I think it's fair to question how big a subsidy states should provide. Giuliani lowered the subsidies at the City University of New York. (It was previously free.)

 

I'd also add, "What about PBS?" to that question, but defunding Elmo is probably a battlecry fewer folks want to get behind (yes, I know Sesame Street could fund itself at a profit just fine. It's hyperbole).

Also, I am unsure where Oscar the Grouch stands on Muslims.

 

PBS, the NEA, the National Endowment for the Humanities, etc., should all be a part of the conversation.

But, the wider you aim your target, the more opposition you're going to find.

On Elmo & Oscar, etc., haven't their parent companies and the producers of other programs that aired on PBS gotten rich off of licensing deals? Does any of that money flow back to PBS? Shouldn't it?

In recent years, NBC has looked to own a portion of most of the shows they've put on in prime time. Shouldn't PBS require a cut of outside profits if they're providing the platform that creates breakout stars like Elmo or Barney?

 

Which is the only point I'm attempting to get at, really. Something does not have public value just because I like it and use it, nor does it lack public value just because I personally dislike it or don't use it. Clearly, some people think PBS and the NEA and state universities (and NPR) and all other such organizations have public value. Clearly, some people don't. I am of the opinion that a healthy society should, to a limited extent, support arts and education. Perhaps you disagree (or just disagree on the extent to which they should). That's a perfectly sound policy debate to have, and a timely one.

It doesn't make much of the hyperbole surrounding Juan Williams' firing less dumb-ass, however. I'd hope any serious policy debate on the subject at a Congressional level would be done in a less dumb-ass way.

 

Sure. But state (government) spending that effects the greater good or serves a large portion of the population is a lot easier to defend than programs that serve a small, narrow audience like NPR -- especially when there are so many alternatives to it's services.

The other problem with programs like the NEA is that not only does it serve a small audience, but because it can't serve all of it's intended audience, it invariably becomes political.

Who receives grants? The more deserving artist or the on who knows how to work the system better? How do you even define a worthy artist?

As usual, when government gets involved, rather than leveling a playing field, it invariably chooses winners & losers.

 

The content on NPR is hit and miss, same as any other TV or radio channel. Nobody is going to like everything on any channel.

But if you can search through the entire NPR portfolio and not find something you think is amazing, I don't know what to tell you. Especially as journalists. NPR is on the very, very short list of people who do journalism right.

 

And I wouldn't say NPR has a narrow appeal, either. Arbitron says at least 27 million Americans listen to at least one NPR show per week on the radio.

 

This is what you get when, science, arts, and politics mix. It's not pretty.

 

Does this reflect our diversity:

 

More, from their site (which oddly doesn't mention the racial demographics of their audience):








http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/audience.html

 

America is about 80% white, so I don't think 86% is bad.

So the only issue there is that NPR is apparently preferred by people who are educated and affluent. I don't see how that can be used against it.

But most importantly, I think there's a confounding factor there: The people most likely to listen to radio shows are people with commutes, and those people are also more likely to be educated and affluent.

 

Do affluent, white people need government to underwrite/subsidize their entertainment choices?