The end of government funding for National Public Radio (NPR) marks a significant change, part of an extensive $9 billion savings initiative. But, it’s worth noting that what defines state-run media goes beyond just funding.
So, in a sense, state media may remain alive despite the official cessation of state support.
This sentiment echoes the traditional phrase about the monarchy: it’s as if we’re whispering this truth in the halls of Washington.
NPR’s government backing has been contentious for a while now. Critics often point to perceived biases in its reporting, polarizing opinions on both sides of the aisle. Just before the last vote, NPR’s CEO, Katherine Maher, gave an interview that left many astonished. She outright denied any political bias, challenging anyone to provide examples of slanted coverage.
I mean, sure, there are examples that people might easily reference, yet Maher seemed almost unaware. She claimed NPR was genuinely working on understanding such criticisms.
It felt a bit disingenuous, especially considering that she took over a troubled organization that many already criticized. Her evident bias hardly seemed like a solution to NPR’s shrinking audience and dwindling funds; perhaps a neutral leadership choice would have made more sense.
In 2024, NPR indeed had a moment to take stock and perhaps address its critics more effectively. Instead, it leaned into government support largely orchestrated by Congressional Democrats. Once again, the board opted for individuals with a known bias, disregarding the opportunity for neutrality.
Incidentally, Maher is also the CEO who faced backlash for criticizing senior editor Uli Berliner when he sought to address the bias at NPR. Berliner pointed out that NPR’s Washington team included 87 registered Democrats compared to zero Republicans.
Maher’s response was to denounce Berliner, accusing him of diminishing the efforts of hardworking journalists, branding his feedback as “rude” and “hurtful.”
Eventually, Berliner resigned, indicating that Maher’s perspectives only reinforced the issues he aimed to address.
While NPR indeed shows signs of bias and has even published unverified conspiracy theories, that hardly justifies continued federal funding. Ultimately, it reflects an acceptance of a media model familiar in other nations, one that many in the U.S. openly reject.
Maher has insisted on the need to “keep the government out” of media affairs, but the recent cuts to NPR funding suggest Congress has taken steps in that direction.
It’s not uncommon for the government to provide support to media, often with intentions of benefiting all outlets. Madison, back in 1791, emphasized the importance of improving newspaper distribution through initiatives like the Post Office Act, which reduced postage for papers.
Interestingly, the very Democrats who criticized cuts to NPR funding also seem to have previously advocated for funds for more successful radio entities like Fox Radio, and some have even hinted at reducing support for cable networks.
Critics argue that Congress’s choice to support NPR was misguided. Despite NPR’s predominantly white, affluent, and liberal audience, progressives fought hard to protect funding.
Still, the conclusion of subsidies doesn’t mean the outright end of national media itself. As mentioned in my book, there’s evidence that media can perpetuate similar effects through consensus rather than coercion.
For years, mainstream media has reflected a consistent party line, leading to widespread discontent among actual audiences. Many have turned away from traditional outlets, turning to expressions like “Let’s Go Brandon” as a symbol of this discontent.
Maher’s bafflement about perceived bias at NPR mirrors a broader dilemma faced by many in journalism, who often seem to dismiss the principles of objectivity.
Yet, there remains some hope for a revival of traditional journalism—through market dynamics.
With NPR no longer receiving public funds, it will have to compete with other radio stations for both listeners and financial support. While it may risk alienating part of its audience by operating from a specific viewpoint, it will need to adapt to a smaller share of the market.
Other media organizations face similar challenges, as staff have recently been urged to either align with new directions or leave.
In the past, Washington Post leaders highlighted significant declines in audience engagement, lamenting that “no one is reading yours.” This caused more unrest among staff rather than prompting a return to balanced reporting.
A change of a similar nature was seen with the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show, which became heavily slanted against conservatives at a time when ratings were declining. In contrast, Fox’s Greg Gutfeld has thrived amidst these shifts.
Recent viewer metrics show Gutfeld averaging around 3 million viewers, while Colbert’s show attracted only about 2.42 million, despite being more costly to produce.
Colbert’s cancellation sparked outcry among liberals, with claims that CBS was bowing to Trump’s influence. Yet, it’s hard to believe media companies would cut ties with profitable programming unless there were underlying issues.
In the end, the market is addressing what traditional media struggles to fix. The audience reflects a wide demographic, with millions voting for Trump, and instead of sticking with legacy media, many have gravitated towards social media and alternative platforms.
As established media outlets stumble, perhaps journalism schools will encourage a return to foundational principles rather than advocate-driven agendas.
For now, Maher and NPR can persist in their current strategy as they look to compensate for lost public funds. But ultimately, they’ll need to be self-sustaining without relying on broader taxpayer support.
