There is a national understanding that in order to create an adequate budget for the United States, cuts have to be made, but where? It is unbelievable that in order to decrease federal spending, Congress is willing to cut funding for the National Public Radio and other federally funded news broadcasting agencies. Although those in favor of cuts for the funding of NPR argue that these broadcasting networks do not elicit many viewers and would therefore not have significant effects on Americans, they would. The reality of the situation is that there are viewers who depend on the National Public Radio for a relatively neutral, objective perspective on politics and hard news. National Public Radio has a website with a clear structure and content meant to deliver the facts. People who depend on public broadcasting should not be denied the opportunity to get a hold of such a medium.
The implications of the federal government's proposed cut on these federal broadcasting networks are negative and send mixed signals to the public. It gives the illusion that Congress is indifferent about the public's means of acquiring news; it would give the public a misconception that hard news is dispensable. If this proposed cut passes the budget, the members of Congress' disinterest in these news broadcasting networks will eventually trickle down to the public and create a nation that cares less about the hard news than ever before (if even possible).
Perhaps Congress' disinterest in public broadcasting stems from the resignation of Ronald Schiller, the vice president of fundraising for NPR. He resigned shortly after being secretly recorded making comments regarding the need for NPR to acquire more outside funding in hopes of becoming more independent from the government and making negative comments about the Republican Party and members of the Tea Party.
NPR and PBS differ from other news broadcasting networks because big corporations, which make the news homogenous on many levels, do not own them. By cutting NPR and other nationally funded broadcasting networks the government would be allowing the audience to focus only on news/broadcasting networks that are applicable to themselves and their own beliefs. Congress is paving the way for more fragmentation to occur.
Hirschorn writes in the article "End Times" that along with financial struggles come mass lay offs and a decrease in the amount of funding The New York Times is able to give reporters for specific stories. This parallels the outcome of public broadcasting networks if federal funding is cut. If there is no money to send journalists to obtain first hand information across the country and abroad, then the national broadcasting networks cannot fulfill their role as unbiased news reporters because they would be forced to obtain their information through other privately owned broadcasting networks. This would defeat the purpose of having a National Public Radio or any federal broadcasting network because they would become dependent upon other news agencies; thus giving the American public fewer options.
