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.
I agree that the cuts to the U.S budget would have a negative affect on the media industry. Americans will lack a nationally funded media news outlet independent of the big 4 broadcast networks and the 3 big cable news giant.That is a negative for they sometimes offer alternative views to the mainstream media. However, thats exactly what it is. No national funded media outlet. PBS and NPR to some degree, defintiely tone down on bias in their reports, but there have been many times these same organizations has had journalists with very strong political opinions exert bias on talkshows, online blogs, and other personal social media accounts, far from objectivity that respectable journalists strive for.
ReplyDeleteI am sure a budget cut would have a negative impact on the media.I always thought that the more media outlets or options the people have to choose from the better.Having multiple different outlets lets people be attentive to the news on both aspects of the debate.Sadly,budget cuts must happen and is it safe to say that less and less people are listening to the radio?
ReplyDeleteIt is upsetting how the government always cuts the benefits to those that pay for them , namely the public and they pay for it through taxes. It just makes one realize how the government that is supposed to act for the good of the people does not really care for their good at all. Has any politician proposed to cut salaries that CEO's get instead? It just seems that the public always carries the burden while the politicians spend our money for other things that are not for public good.
ReplyDeleteSeems like everything's getting cut these days. It's sad that it's one of the better news outlets- PBS's Washington Week is one of my favorite shows! On the other hand, Ron Schiller's recent antics were unfortunate, and I'm afraid, aren't helping the situation very much. With so many media outlets to choose from nowadays, especially tabloid outlets, it's sad to see one of the more reliable ones be penalized.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good topic that very clearly relates to our course content. There are a few points that I think you might clarify -- PBS and NPR are not the only sources of hard news in the U.S., so when you say "The only alternatives in news broadcasting that a cut or dissolution of NPR would leave for the American audience is to tune into subjective news broadcasting stations or to tune into soft/sensational news stations and shows" it is not entirely apparent what you mean. Toward the end you note the value of these outlets not being owned by corporations, and if that is what you mean when you say there are not alternatives, you need to make that explicit from the start. A few other writing and meaning issues: Congress should be capitalized throughout and I am not sure exactly which "types" of broadcasting you are referring to here: "The consumption of only these two types of news broadcasting networks would cause a huge detriment to society's conception of politics and factual information." Finally, you may want to add a bit about the political reasons public broadcasting is under attack, particularly as recent events involving NPR have played the outlets under even greater scrutiny by Republicans in Congress.
ReplyDelete