NPR’s Ron Schiller admits NPR funding not needed.

Ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | March 8th, 2011 at 11:00 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

This is, after all, what writer Neal Stephenson calls “The Age of Scrutiny:” there is no such thing as a private conversation or opinion any more. Like that fact or hate it, but you must accept it: too many cameras, too many people who can afford them, and data storage just gets cheaper and cheaper. It is also an age that has elevated hypocrisy to the first rank of sins; better by far to be a forthrightly unpleasant person in public than to be one who is unpleasant in private, but who never acts on it in public. Combine the two, and hi-jinks ensue.

The best part of this is not senior NPR executive Ron [Schiller]‘s [oops!] shrugging off the casual references to Jewish-run media; or the way that NPR’s reputation of despising anybody who isn’t a liberal Northeastern intellectual is apparently justified from the top down. It’s not even that NPR thinks that you are probably a racist and definitely an uneducated ingrate with ambitions above your class. All of this we already knew, after all. No, what’s the best part of this is these quotes from Schiller:

Well, frankly it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without Federal funding.

[later, when asked whether NPR could survive without funding.]

NPR would definitely survive and most of the stations would survive.

Nobody tell NPR head Vivian Schiller (no relation), who spent Monday doing her best to couch removal of Federal funding in terms of the Book of Revelation. Oh, and she apologized for firing Juan Williams – which said firing was something that Ron Schiller took the time to victory-lap. All in all, this was one comprehensive stomp-on-your-own-message that NPR did: I’m almost impressed at their own urge for self-destruction.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Let me save the push-backers some time: Georgetown is in DC; DC has a one-person consent law for recording conversations.

PPS: Hot Air had the same reaction that I did.

PPPS: A colleague would like me to note that we have thus far only seen excerpts. Clearly, since NPR has nothing to hide, it should be the first to demand that the full, unedited tapes be made available for Congress to fully study as part of its decision on whether or not to keep funding NPR.

Tags: npr, oops, ron schilling

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

victrola

take away their status as a non-profit. If donors, corporations, and foundations no longer got the tax write off, it would quickly whither away.

As long as the Democrats control the White House and Senate, it’s not going to happen, but hopefully after 2012, we’ll have the votes.

I wonder if individual states could start taxing them?
acat

just stopping the government subsidy is sufficient.

Keep in mind – as long as NPR is an alternative, Air America-type operations can’t hope to prosper. Think of it as the liberal-airwaves-flypaper strategery.

Mew
victrola

It would be the equivalent of citizens getting a tax write off for donating to Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. The organization itself also doesn’t have to pay taxes (again, a huge advantage it shouldn’t have)

I do want to see NPR die, just like I would like to see the New York Times die, it’s a leftist propaganda machine that poses as a fair, non-biased media outlet.
romeg

Is the Schiller/Schilling thing a typo or are there actually three individuals referenced in this piece? two Schiller and one Schilling.
acat

Is that really what you meant to say?

Two points jump to mind.

First, eliminating tax write-offs discourages giving. This isn’t necessarily bad, there’s a lot of ideological not-for-profits on both sides that I’d like to see go bankrupt… but there’s a lot I’d like to see stick around too …

Second, taking away the church’s fear of the IRS may be just what the doctor ordered … because if the IRS can’t yank a churches’ tax-exempt status for engaging in political speech … that’d have all kinds of “interesting” consequences…

Mew
streiff

unless you can demonstrate they are violating their 501(c)3 status which isn’t all that easy.
victrola

my issue with NPR is I feel it’s a political organization that’s being treated like a charity.

If I donate to the Republican Party or Americans for Prosperity, I don’t get to deduct that off my taxes, but if I donate to NPR, I do. That’s what I want to change. If churches engaged in political activity, they would lose their tax-exempt status also (but that mainly applies only to conservative churches)

Apparently, you really want to keep NPR’s tax exempt status (that probably won’t garner much support around here)
jaybo

This is dynamite on so many levels!

It really proves many of the opinions that conservatives have about the way that the MSM views most Americans and especially anyone who does not come out of the liberal propaganda mills that are called colleges and universities.

It also lends increased credibility to Glenn Beck’s view that the is an loosely organized effort to change this country.
earlgrey

I fail that test miserably.
jackhammer

when fundraising a lot of people let a lot of stuff blow by. And you play to your audience.

This all reminds me of a lot of “News of the Wrold” journalism, and for my money it is distasteful.
jackhammer

But on principle, and not for cause.
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

…known as an ‘oopsie.’ Fixed, and thanks for catching it.
http://www.reddit.com/user/pi_over_three/ Pi Over Three
flannery

The complicated web of foundations, agencys, ACORN, Soros that slosh money around without any real oversight and no taxation must stop. Beck shows you night after night how these unregulated organizations work to destroy our way of life. Let’s redo the tax code. Cut rates, eliminate deductions and srutinize the cheats, including the current 501(c)3′s.
acat

You’re right, it’s not apples-to-apples, but that’s because you’re comparing political organizations (a major political party, Americans for Prosperity) with an ideological organization.

NPR is not “political”, as in it doesn’t endorse a given set of candidates or appeal to listeners to contact their representatives on a given issue.

NPR is “ideological”, in that they do have a slant – liberal – and they do encourage their listeners to think the same way.

It would be much more accurate to compare NPR to Thomas Road Baptist Church…. both are ideological in nature, not endorsing candidates – Falwell got very good at not endorsing while still letting his congregation know where he stood.

Had you understood what I wrote, you’d see that I don’t have a problem pulling NPR’s status… but I would prefer for my local library and childrens’ shelter to not lose theirs along the way….

Mew
streiff

4-H, Boy Scouts?
jaybo

If you take an “analytical look” at the video in its entirety you see some interesting opinions come out.

I am willing to discount to some degree the commentary that is “Muslim specific”. I suspect that they were playing to their audience on these topics. But their opinions of Americans in general are telling.

This is an area that wasn’t necessarily needed to win the contribution. Further, I find it very interesting that NPR representatives would feel that this group would not have a problem aligning with groups that promote the liberal-secular-amoral lifestyle that permeates most universities. Also they (NPR) must know that these same groups regularly deny certain moral values including women’s rights and equality for non-heterosexuals.

It leads me to believe that they have formed a truce of sorts and are willing to set these differences aside to fight the greater enemy of conservative thought and Zionism in the world. How naive do liberals have to be to not see that eventually they will suffer persecution from their allies if they win.
http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

is just my cross to bear as a Federal Employee I guess, sigh, alas and alak (sarcasm off)

Where do they find Fertilizer-Chutes like Schiller? Is there a Bung-Hole Tree that grows a crop of these people each and every year?
victrola

and I think it’s silly to say that if NPR loses its tax exempt status that means the end of all charitable organizations. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand, this has nothing to do with churches or food banks.

NPR needs to either be classified as a partisan political organization that doesn’t allow tax-deductible donations or government subsidies, or a corporation like MSNBC that is a media outlet that also doesn’t get to receive tax-deductible donations and has to pay taxes.

Why does this enshrined one media outlet get all of these perks? Why don’t we make conservative AM talk radio a government enshrined and protected entity that never has to pay taxes, gets government funds and listeners can get a tax break for sending money in? It would be outrageous and it’s really no different than NPR.

I don’t have a big problem with say MSNBC because they don’t get preferential tax treatment. I strongly disagree with their slant, but I don’t think the government should either silence nor amplify their voice. That’s my main issue here.
jaybo

Please tell me you do not actually believe that!

The truth is the opposite. Churches have specific clearly defined protections spelled out in The Constitution, nonprofits do not.
streiff

NPR acts within the scope of its IRS classification. Nothing says a (c)3 has to be non partisan. The restriction is they can’t campaign.
flannery

If they don’t have any income they will not have a tax liability.
streiff

Churches can say whatever they want, they just can’t say whatever they want and be tax exempt.

In order to be tax exempt they have to be organized as such under the IRS code.

Churches can’t endorse specific candidate. They can hand out voter guides which tell parishioners what issues are important and how the candidates stand.
flannery

It is called Harvard. (or insert your favorite ivory tower here)
acat

Is it that NPR takes federal dollars? I agree, that should be ended.
Is it that NPR is ideological? I agree, they’re definitely liberal.
Is it that they’re tax-exempt? I’ve tried to show you some of the other organizations that are also tax-exempt and ideological in nature that would be affected by your proposed action. I don’t have a problem with pulling their tax-exempt status, but want to be sure you understand what you’re saying.

I haven’t used a “slippery slope” argument, so I have to question if you’re really reading what I’m saying here.

Mew
streiff

in cash or in kind are no longer deductible.

And their real estate holdings becomes taxable.

Great deal. Run that one by your pastor.
victrola

and a change in the law can make that happen.

We have all sorts of new restrictions about campaign finance and how paid political speech is classified, my opinion is NPR gets an unfair loophole.

I really don’t see the difference between NPR and conservative AM talk radio, yet AM talk radio has none of the perks NPR does.
streiff

If you can’t tell the difference between NPR and Glenn Beck I don’t know what to tell you.
acat

is how few in attendance at most churches ever realize the shackles that the IRS puts on churches even exist…

Mew
victrola

I’ve seen all sorts of Leftist nonsense come out of NPR/PBS like Bill Moyers and Nina Totenberg, the difference is Glen Beck’s media outlets have to pay taxes, he doesn’t get government subsidies, and I can’t send a check to Glen Beck and get a rebate on my taxes.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
victrola

Why again do we even need “government radio” or government television”?

I would think most people can understand the difference between an organization like a church and NPR. If would be VERY easy to pass a law making the distinction so the IRS has no open interpretation if that’s your real fear.

Regarding the slippery slope argument, here’s your quote:

“Had you understood what I wrote, you?d see that I don?t have a problem pulling NPR?s status? but I would prefer for my local library and childrens? shelter to not lose theirs along the way?. ”

That seems pretty slippery-slope to me (the end of children’s shelter and libraries if NPR loses it’s tax-status) We’re not going to see eye to eye on this, but I’m amazed you feel so strongly that NPR keeps it tax status.
streiff

with what they do. They really aren’t the same.
earlgrey

how would I “win” the contribution if I was trying to sell NPR to investors of dubious background. I don’t see myself as going as far as these guys went, but I tend to have in some cases a bit more rigid morality than some people do.
jaybo

There are churches currently challenging The IRS and the ACLU as to the constitutionality of that decision.

But I would simply ask you to point to the place in The Constitution where the right to voice your political opinion is taken away from a church.
jaybo

I simply asked myself why would these managers be willing to offer their personal opinion in those areas unless they believed that it would make them more attractive to these potential donors.

I don’t believe morals had anything to do with the subjects discussed.
streiff

it is a fact.

Read the constitution. Find the phrase “tax exempt” and we can continue this non-argument.

The Constitution grants people the freedom of speech, and it forbids restrictions on free exercise of religion. It says nothing about tax exempt status.
jaybo

So you admit that there is no “freedom of speech restriction” in The Constitution?

So basically it then comes down to a determination as to whether it is constitutional to threaten to impose a tax as punishment for political speech.

And when you read the protections afforded to churches in The Constitution;

“Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Taxing a church could be argued to be, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Also immediately after the above comes, “freedom of speech”.

Secular nonprofits have no specific protections in this same document.
victrola

From legal services to Chuckie Cheese. How is that any different? The difference is they don’t have to run as many ads because the taxpayer is picking up much of the tab.

Regarding gold, I hear all the time people complaining about how evil Glen Beck’s advertisers are for pushing gold. I’ve probably listened to Glen Beck a grand total of one hour in my entire life, but what exactly is wrong with pushing gold? I doubt you’ll hear a single complaint from anyone that bought gold out of fear at what the FED is doing over the last few years, it was a very profitable investment. I should have bought more.
acat

Be aware, though .. cats have teeth.

I have no problem pulling NPR’s exemption… I’ve said it twice and alluded to it a third time, in my first reply to you. You seem to have a problem comprehending that it’s not a restriction-by-identity, i.e. “NPR is exempt”, rather it’s part of a whole class of organizations that are tax-exempt.

Mew
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

They provide a valuable service, and if people choose to buy gold with Goldline’s mark-up, that’s their decision. There’s a difference between corporate sponsorship and commercials, but I’m not going to explain it (See third paragraph).

The vast majority of NPR’s funding is not from taxation ( http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html ), and I suspect that if and when the government eliminates NPR funding, charitable giving will increase enough to offset the funding runoff, and then some. I look forward to that day.

Your use of FED in all caps tells me everything I need to know about where this conversation is going, though. Viva la r3VOLucion. Or not. Better things to do. Buh-bye.
victrola

and think a gold standard is completely unrealistic, but that doesn’t mean the FED (or Fed) is above criticism and shouldn’t be scrutinized for the effects of quantitative easing.

Regardless, I see corporate sponsorship and advertising being murky at best, especially when the NPR host reads out the sponsor’s phone number or contact info so you can call and schedule an appointment. If you changed NPR’s tax status, you’d see 90% less in “private” donations if it was non-deductible, which in my opinion is a roundabout way of government funding.

If all NPR and PBS had was purely educational programming that was non-partisan, I would feel differently, but how many more examples (like this video) do we need to know that NPR and MSNBC are really not that different, and they are merely pretending to be an unbiased, government blessed news source so they can continue to get preferential treatment form the IRS?
johnt

It’s just that simple, if you’ll forgive the use of the word.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Jumped to conclusions. My bad. Paulestinians annow me to no end.

The key problem with your argument, as I see it, is that nonprofit and for-profit models are different in design and intent.

Thought experiment: A group sets up an organization which is identical to NPR (Let’s call it PAR, Public American Radio), and therefore, it has the same non-profit, tax-exempt status.

If PAR hires from a particular demographic (Say, Econ professors from UofChicago or Hoover Institution fellows) because those are the individuals with whom its management is familiar, then it will naturally tilt rightward, even though PAR is non-partisan by design.

This is a completely plausible scenario, and if you want a point of comparison to NPR, you’ll need a network like PAR to exist.

PAR airs approximately, say, thirty seconds of blurbs per half-hour, plus twice a year, it asks listeners for donations. They are so happy that they can have news that they appreciate that they give money, which funds the network. Also, some donors are crazy people who will blow $200 to get an 8X10 framed photograph of lint that was once described by an on-air personality for six and a half minutes.

PAR has a budget where expenses equal donations, roughly. Its mission is to disseminate information.

Across town, WAuR (all-gold radio) runs four minutes of ads for every five minutes of programming (a 180-minute talk radio show like Limbaugh or Ingraham is ~100 min talk, 80 min ads). The goal of WAuR is to make money for its investors, and so it gets the most popular talent available so that they can sell ads for the most dollar. Its format is talk radio because the company that owns it has figured out that the area where there is the most unmet demand is political talk.

Beyond the fact that both spend money and air programming, there’s not all that much similarity between PAR and WAuR. PAR:WAUR::Goodwill:Wal-Mart. As others have pointed out, if we strip public broadcasting’s tax-exempt status, we would have to strip it away from a heck of a lot of other organizations.

Got a bit rambly there. Sorry.
acat

Had a friend who got a sales job at a small business – staff included a scientific genius who’d come up with a unique gizmo, a couple engineers who refined and built said gizmo, some bean counters, and a few other sales guys.

My friend asked how the business was organized, expecting to hear partnership, LLC, S-corp, sole proprietorship, something like that. Nope. Quaker church. The senior staff got together and held a Quaker service every so often, as required, and otherwise, built and sold their gizmos.

Is that a church? The IRS believed it was…

Mew
jaybo

acat,

Pointing out the illegal and immoral behavior of any one person or group does not justify changing a fundamentally sound precept like the 1st amendment just because they took advantage of it.

The idea that we must right every wrong by passing a law is the whole reason why our federal government is in the chaotic mess it is currently in now!

Please! That is a very weak argument to change or modify the most important human contribution to governance in the history of mankind.
acat

You’re so wrong, I’m not sure where to start, and I’m not going to waste much time on it.

I agree that too many churches say nothing rather than run afoul of the IRS. I don’t see where the case you cite has a snowball’s chance in July. On the equator.

The establishment bit in the first amendment means the government won’t operate a church. Can’t have a “President and High Priest Obama”, eh?

The freedom of expression bit means that, as long as the expression does not violate the constitutional rights of others, it is permitted.

The IRS has to define religion somehow – otherwise, I’m declaring myself a reformed consumer and refusing to pay sales taxes because shopping is my holy communion.

In short, the IRS has, as a legitimate department of the executive branch, established guidelines.

Perhaps some need to be moved, but it’s not a slam-dunk case, and the courts will be siding with the IRS unless there are clear signs that the rules are applied unfairly.

Tell you what, write up a diary, cite all of the cases you’re aware of, and see what Red State’s resident legal minds have to say.

Mew
runner12

How they ever began to receive federal dollars is a mystery to me. They need to rely on private donations to fund their programming or they could sell themselves off to a private company.

It is time for the taxpayers to quit footing the bill.
jaybo

“The freedom of expression bit means that, as long as the expression does not violate the constitutional rights of others, it is permitted.”

This is where many Americans misunderstand The Constitution. It is a document that protects the citizen from an overreaching government, not visa versa. Your interpretation is the classic liberal theory that includes the “living constitution”. Remember it would not be the first time that the SCOTUS got something wrong. Watch for that one case that challenges the IRS’s ability to threaten a church with taxation. It is already in the planning stages.

“The IRS has to define religion somehow…”

This will never happen but if they did it could possibly be that test case that would allow churches to challenge the federal government and correct a wrong from the past. After all the IRS is constrained by the same constitution that constrains the reset of the federal government.

I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree but I will say this much.

If anything changes in the future court cases it will be the striking down of the unconstitutional ruling that there should be a separation of church and state.
acat

You’re going to need it.

Mew
barleycorn

I use Yahoo as my home page and its a greta way to keep an eye on their consistent bias against conservatives and Republicans:

This is their current headline:
————
NPR chief quits over hidden camera video

CEO Vivian Schiller steps down amid growing fallout from a conservative activist’s stunt.

———————

Got that?

When one liberal is caught behaving so badly that ANOTHER liberal has to resign their job, its all because of a conservative’s “stunt”.

Unreal.
From ME to You
rightwingmom52

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

NPR’s Ron Schiller admits NPR funding not needed.

Ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray.

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL