< PREVIOUS ] [ 1995 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
As I write this, my mind is being poisoned by elitist liberal propaganda financed, in part, by our tax dollars. Manfully I struggle against the pernicious subliminal influence of the pinko one-world message in a Morning Edition story about a joint U.S.-Russian space mission.
Was there a hint of admiration in the comparison of cosmonaut training to astronaut training? What about the account of a proposed freeze on new federal regulations? Granted, they quoted some Republican congressmen, but they also quoted some guy named Bill, a man known to associate with dangerous liberals like Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Only to trusted friends, people who wouldn't betray me for anything this side of a suspended sentence, do I dare confess to listening to NPR.
Why this dangerous addiction, when I should know better? My inner-child therapist says it's genetic, an hereditary defect which makes me believe that if a story needs 15 minutes to be told, then take the 15 minutes, rather than try to compress it into a 10-second sound bite.
Actually, the controversy over funding the CPB is like the controversy over grazing-fee reform. In both, the argument is allegedly about tax money. In both, the fact is that if you were truly serious about cutting federal spending, there are thousands of better places to aim your time and energy.
What are the arguments against CPB funding? There's the cost -- about $285 million, $1.38 apiece. But 20 minutes of examining any agency budget would produce more savings: diversity training for air-traffic controllers, Superfund payments to attorneys, continued production of bombers to attack an enemy who's no longer an enemy and, for that matter, needs two months to conquer a city within its own borders.
There's the ideological argument that PBS and NPR exhibit a consistent liberal bias. Since our kids outgrew Sesame Street, I seldom see any PBS, so I have no idea what sort of left-wing prattle besmirches the TV spectrum.
But NPR seldom sounds liberal. Its news priorities seem
to rank interesting
and significant
ahead of
any political line, and it presents a wide range of
commentary. As some subversive friends have noted, if you
want liberal radio, you find a Pacifica outlet.
Besides that, if NPR and CPB were indeed both liberal and influential, how did all those conservatives get elected? Wouldn't a brainwashed population make other selections in the voting booth?
Then there's the elitist argument. Speaker Newt calls
public broadcasting a sandbox for the elite.
I've never quite figured out how Americans feel about
elitism. If the high school football coach puts his 11 best
players on the field, that's wholesome. If a math teacher
wants her 11 best trig students to study calculus, that's
elitist tracking that has no place in our public
schools.
Any number of people have confessed to me that they occasionally catch PBS and NPR offerings. These members of the elite include a felon, several carpenters and cabinetmakers, a welder, two unemployed musicians, and, alas, much of the staff at that citadel of the media elite -- the weekly Wet Mountain Tribune in Westcliffe.
Perhaps Speaker Newt is right, and we shouldn't use public funds to support institutions which cater primarily to the elite: the wealthy, powerful and well-connected. If he really believes that, though, he ought to be dissolving the Federal Reserve Board, the judicial system and the United States Congress.
The Federal Reserve Board panics every time too many people have jobs, the judicial system rewards those who can afford the finest legal talent, and there's the fact that people of modest means seldom engage lobbyists or organize political action committees to buy results from Congress.
Thus all the arguments I've heard in favor of eliminating CPB seem rather specious. Zapping it wouldn't reduce the federal deficit enough to matter, the programming isn't all that liberal, and if CPB indeed caters to an elite, there are institutions which do a lot more catering.
Here's how to find out whether Speaker Newt is serious when he talks about empowering normal Americans, reducing federal regulations and restoring constitutional rights.
As it is, you or I can start a newspaper or magazine without any government license. But if we tried to start broadcasting on the same basis, the Federal Communications Commission would slap us down; we're supposed to hire lawyers and engineers, then go through an expensive process to get licensed. You've either got to be rich or connected for any hope of truly exercising your constitutional rights on the airwaves, which theoretically belong to all of us.
However, the FCC recently went to court to shut down an unlicensed station in California. Federal district judge Claudia Wilken refused to grant the injunction, agreeing with the operator that the FCC restrictions were a clear violation of the First Amendment.
So get rid of the CPB. And while we're empowering Americans, reducing regulation and restoring constitutional rights, let's get rid of the FCC, too. There's no need to pay for public broadcasting if we'd just let the public broadcast.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1995 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >