So what would actually happen if Republicans in Washington defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? On this week’s show, we try to get the most detailed picture possible of what would actually happen if the Trump administration’s stated goal of totally defunding CPB becomes a reality this year.
We also consider one argument as to why the CPB should be defunded that has been articulated in recent days by an unlikely source: sitting CPB board member Howard Husock. He comes back to The Pub to discuss his Washington Post op-ed “Public broadcasting shouldn’t get a handout from taxpayers anymore.” (For what it’s worth, Husock didn’t write the headline.)
Plus, host Adam Ragusea consults with a Senate procedure expert and a lobbyist for public media organizations who used to be a Hill staffer about how likely it is that the CPB will really get the ax anytime soon.
Four times during the last week of February, ThinkProgress LGBT editor Zack Ford wrote, NPR “reported on LGBT issues in ways that elevate anti-LGBT positions and normalize discrimination against LGBT people.”
I know some serious anti-LGBT people who would have a real belly laugh at the idea that “Nitwit Progressive Radio” is anti-queer. Nonetheless, Ford’s article struck a nerve with many public media people who read and debated it in a couple secret Facebook groups.
One piece Ford objected to was an episode of WAMU’s 1A, in which three guests arguing that trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice were balanced with a lone dissenter. Ford didn’t think the latter guest should’ve been allowed on at all.
In my conversation with Ford, I asked him: If polls say half of Americans still think trans people should have to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, isn’t one-guest-of-four the least representation they should get?
“I don’t really care if NPR comes off as politically biased one way or the other, because what I care about is that people’s lives are on the line, and that the truth is on the line,” he said. “And giving someone a platform to reinforce fears that aren’t based on facts is irresponsible.”
Not a bad argument, I thought. This week on The Pub, Ford and I hash out one of the most pressing journalism questions of our time: How do we represent views that we may find reprehensible and/or irrational?
Also on the show, Norwegian public broadcasting comes up with THE GREATEST IDEA EVER. I talk with Ståle Grut and Marius Arnesen of NRKbeta about their new system in which online readers must take a quiz to prove they’ve actually finished the article before commenting. (If you want that for your site, download their WordPress plugin on GitHub.)