Last month NPR CEO Gary Knell left to take a job at National Geographic, making him the latest in a string of CEOs who left after a short stint running the public radio outlet. On September 13, NPR named a new acting president and CEO: board member Paul G. Haaga.
The NPR press release (9/13/13) states that Haaga’s “accomplished career” included a stint as “chairman of the Investment Company Institute”–the powerful lobbying group of the mutual fund industry. As the Los Angeles Times (11/29/03) once reported, “Mutual funds have been mostly shielded from the reforms forced on the financial world–thanks in large part to the efforts of the Investment Company Institute.”
NPR also adds that Haaga has ties to right-wing think tanks–he is “a member of the National Council of the American Enterprise Institute” and he sits on “the Board of Overseers of Hoover Institution at Stanford University.”
Haaga is also a fairly regular contributor to Republican politicians. According to OpenSecrets.org, this year he made a $32,400 donation to the Republican National Committee; in the previous two years, he made contributions of around $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. He’s also given four-figure checks to a large number of mostly Republican candidates, including Rep. Paul Ryan, George Allen and Mitch McConnell.
So the new boss–for now–at NPR is a former financial industry lobbyist who is a regular donor to Republican politicians, with ties to two prominent conservative think tanks. When NPR finds a new boss, he’ll continue to be a member of NPR‘s board.
According to right-wing mythology, NPR is a decidedly left-wing media outlet, living off government subsidies and pushing a liberal agenda. That’s not at all true when it comes to what’s on the air–or who’s on the board.
Mirza
I suppose that being a conservative is not a crime.
Mirza
Also FAIR should strive to be objective and non-partisan. Criticizing the fact that CEO is a conservative, rather than pointing out instances of unfairness and inaccuracy in media is partisan.
Brux
Being a conservative is not a crime … but these days maybe it should be as it usually works against the public interest.
Conservatives have been trying to destroy or infiltrate public media since I was a kid. They talk about how the so-called free market is the best way to run things, but looking on my TV there is just pure junk on Commercial TV, and Public Media outperforms Commercial media in every possible way. Not only that but in every way possible that the FCC is supposed to regulate – that the broadcast Media work in the Public Interest, that is thrown on the junk heap, it no longers happens – period. Putting an activist Conservative in charge of Public Media is bound to not work well all the way around, except to better silence opposition to Conservatives.
Brux
> Criticizing the fact that CEO is a conservative, rather than pointing out instances of unfairness and inaccuracy in media is partisan.
The reason I am so dead set against Conservatives in any position of public trust is exactly this kind of statement. Conservatives only mention fairness when they think they can get something they want from it, they have no interest in fairness as a goal, or even to discuss what fair is, it is the utter ruthlessness of power politics, the incredible cyncism of using the word fairness to complain about Conservatives make me ill. As Alan Dershowitz said, give it the boot on the other foot argument?
For example, let’s say the new direct of PBS as a “community organizer”, this same person who cites fairness above would be going ballistic about how a commie is running Public TV, and using all kind of insulting acronyms and loaded language to do it. All kinds of innuendo would be cast around, and claims made that are not true … along the lines of Obama’s birth certificate.
You wonder why people condemn Conservatives out of hand, it’s because we have a lot of experience with them, particularly any conservative that makes the public eye … remember Brownie, who got his job not based on competence but connection to the Bush administration.
Don’t talk to be about fairness when it comes to today’s breed of conservative.
I know what conservatives is supposed to be about. For many years PBS used to run a little show by one of America’s arch conservatives, William F. Buckley Jr.. If anyone would take the time to go back and review of these shows you would find a level of fairness, respect and discussion that simply never happens today.
Why is that? Because in Buckley’s day there was an actual meeting of the minds, and interplay of ideas, that was positive and enabling of democracy, today’s conservatives simply do not stand for that. – i.e. will not stand for that – which is why they seek to destroy PBS.
Brux
> Brux, rules need to apply equally to all.
Mirza, you say that, and maybe you mean it in the sincerest way … but that is not what we see with Conservatives, and to even be “fair” it is less and less what we see from politicians and the “connected” in general who take orders from above imposing a new order on all of us that none of us voted for and most do not want. These trends were first and most evident in the conservative movement, and the power politics was not even denied by the founders, William Kristol, et al. – who got their strategies from Trotskyism.
Anyway, I see no productive use of going back and forth with you on this, I know what you believe and I’m just balancing it with what I believe, there just simply can be no debate these days on these issue because Conservatives declared war on the government and system and for them, a lot like radical Muslims, nothing matters but victory.
Don’t ask me to be happy about it or to perceive this as anything process that belongs in our “democratic” system.
Brux
> He’s also given four-figure checks to a large number of mostly Republican candidates, including Rep. Paul Ryan, George Allen and Mitch McConnell.
And, by the way, this is not really even a conservative, this is a far-right radical reactionary, placed to destroy another public asset in the fight to privatize everything and suck all Americans into the private economy, thus supply and demand spread globally will reduce the economic and political power our Constitution should be guaranteeing us.
We need to start to recognize this as every bit the war on the system it is, and for example the National Socialist Party in Germany was before WWII.
Mirza
Brux, can you hear youself?
> These trends were first and most evident in the conservative movement, and the power politics was not even denied by the founders, William Kristol, et al. – who got their strategies from Trotskyism.
Seriously? Conservatives are communists?
> Anyway, I see no productive use of going back and forth with you on this, I know what you believe
Actually I don’t believe we have spoken before.
> Conservatives declared war on the government and system and for them, a lot like radical Muslims, nothing matters but victory.
How many radical Muslims do you know? How many conservatives?
> We need to start to recognize this as every bit the war on the system it is, and for example the National Socialist Party in Germany was before WWII.
So now this guy is a Nazi?
Brux
> Neoconservatism, Kristol maintains, is not an ideology but a “persuasion,” a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms.[12] It is classical rather than romantic in temperament, and practical and anti-Utopian in policy. One of Kristol’s most celebrated quips defines a neoconservative as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” As a former Trotskyist, Irving was indeed himself mugged by the “reality” of conservative philosophy and enfolded leftist policies such as a lack of objection to welfare programs, international “revolution” through nation-building/militarily imposed “democracy” and application of Fabian Socialism/Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint. These concepts lie at the core of neoconservative philosophy to this day.[13]
Do some investigation on Irving Kristol and where the philosophy you defend grows out of. This is not a philosophy, it is a strategy for the overthrow of the American system.
Mirza
>> Clearly you can see that you are doing the very same thing that you are accusing conservatives of doing.
> Actually I am not, that is clearly my opinion, which if I had enough time and an unbiased audience, and the interest, I would defend and prove.
Well you assign attributes to conservatives, conspiracy theories, etc. From a neutral point of view, what is the difference between saying that Obama is a secret Muslim, vs. saying that Conservatives are waging the war on America? Is it really different when conservatives complain of liberal media conspiracy vs. when you say that Conservatives are trying to subvert the media?
If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck, than it must be a duck.
> As we have seen over and over and over the Conservative agenda is one of total all out war ….
That is really an ad-hominem argument against conservatives. Issues should be addressed and not resort to discrediting the one making the issue.
> Another tactic used unfairly by Conservatives is the reduction of every issue to equality on both sides. For instance you claiming that I am doing the same thing you are doing without differentiation. And, the ability to predict that means to me that further conversation with you will just repeat this over and over in the well-developed Conservative form – something I am not interested in doing.
Well golden rule, right? Do unto others as you would have them do to you. You can’t blame conservatives for something you do yourself. That’s just hypocritical.
V.L. Martin
A conservative does not believe in public broadcasting of any kind. Every now and then conservatives try to defund PBS and NPR. They think everything should be privately run–like the post office, health care (which is why we have such high costs) and Obama Care only partly mitigates that because in order to get it passed at all, the private insurance companies had to be brought in). We already know their record on public broadcasting. So saying a conservative is a bad choice for public radio or television is based on evidence and facts. Even with some public funding, some rich people and corporations always try to influence content. We have not yet seen the PBS Special on “740 Park Avenue” which is where many of the wealthiest New Yorkers live, including David Koch. His activities were chronicled in the documentary, but it has never been shown because David Koch is a big contributor to WGBH and has an outsized voice in what is shown, and he had the power to stop it. He is usually named as a sponsor for NOVA, but I’m sure he keeps a close eye on that too.
We KNOW what conservatives do. They do not like dissent and they do not like exposes of themselves and they are too often in a position to halt other voices. This is the big problem in our so called democracy today: people like David Koch not only own government but much of the media–which keeps their government puppets in their place.
Padremellyrn
And clearly some of the posters here are using the “false balance” of the Fux snooze network to try and make it sound like F.A.I.R. is simply playing He Said/She Said. They are not bothering to follow the links in the articles that show past historical data of attacks made on the Public Airwaves by these people. The Republicans and their committee have consistently, year after year attempted to destroy any semblance of Fair and Accurate in the Public Air Waves. Please show where FAIR is doing this? I have yet to see a committee of “FAIR” sitting in Washington, directing the CEO of PBS and others to not put on programs that are unfriendly to them, or face massive cuts. I don’t see FAIR sitting on the boards of Corporations and pulling their advertisement money because there was a show that didn’t treat them as “Gods”.
Just because the Victim hands over all their money to the man robbing them with a shotgun, doesn’t make it Fair and Balanced for both sides.
FreeSpirit
@Mirza
If we want to watch programs put on the air by corporations, whose running bodies are by default “conservative”, then we tune into CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. Before frequenting this ghetto and spreading your sophist arguments, you should learn about The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. While you are at it educate yourself about the Fairness Doctrine policy of 1949 which a notable conservative (Ronald Reagan) abolished in 1987.
The charter of public media is to present programming that is absent from the commercial media. For instance, can you imagine Fox, NBC, or CBS presenting a documentary about Islam and Moslems without caricaturizing them? Well, PBS has and does.
Robert Bostick
Who’s behind the appointment of this troglodyte to the NPR board? He will likely usher in the demise of NPR claiming lack of audience support—Conservatives–.
Robert Bostick
MODERN CONSERVATISM IS A VIRAL CANCER EATING AWAY AT THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION. ONLY RADICAL REVOLUTION WILL EXCISE THIS CANCER.
Eric
new slogan/mission for NPR:
“Public discussion with private limits”
Marc
@MIRZA your argument falls apart here: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12118/pbs-killed-wisconsin-uprising-documentary-citizen-koch-appease-koch-brothers
and
here :http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2013/05/david_koch_and_pbs_the_odd_couple.html
and in the vast amount of question begging and straw man “arguments” you make, which are the staple of all right wing clap trap.
Peter J. Kraus
Those of us who are truly searching for information have left PBS and NPR behind for at least a decade. It´s a bummer, because they used to be informative and more or less balanced. But ever since W stocked Public Radio and Public TV with his minions, it´s been as useless as Fox and the Big Three.
Thankfully, there´s the internet, where foreign language news and broadcasts from a number of countries counteract the Washington party lines: both of them.
rnh
Brux only wants to talk to an “unbiased audience,” i.e., people who already agree with him.
Matthew Frisch
Calling him a “conservative” misses the point. He is right wing. He believes that it’s best not to leave things to regular people to decide. Important decisions should be made on high for things to be done properly. Take any power away from the people as a whole and hand it to the elites. Calling people like Haaga “conservative” misses the mark completely- which is a pretty good summation of the role of NPR in quelling any opposition to the control of our government by moneyed interests.
Monte Moire
There goes my listening to NPR. Look being conservative isn’t a crime. But over the last decade, the Right Wing has become obessed with trying to smear everything that isnt to their(conservative) angle as evil. I will give NPR a chance. But the minute it starts becoming like Fox News. I am done with NPR. And heaven help us if Rush Limbaugh ends up on NPR.
Vaska
This article has finally helped me understand my own reaction to NPR programs (I’m a Canadian and our equivalent is the CBC, which has a much more ambitious coverage and programming): I’ve always been baffled by my perception of NOR’s political stance, which I could not but see as right wing, a perception obviously at odds with the prevalent reputation NPR has for its (allegedly) progressive politics. It would be interesting to know how it got that reputation in the first place
mike
Corporate bias is abhorrently displayed in the other “public” American Public Media programs if you listen with a discerning ear.
Tom
NPR went nutty rightist in its “news” offerings when the network started running commercials. This seals the deal.
Anthony McCarthy
This is a whole new low for NPR. It should change its name to Neo-con’s Private Reserve. It has absolutely betrayed the trust of anyone who has ever given it money and since it has received government funding for most of its existence, that includes the entire public.
Public radio did a better job of reporting the news when it was largely a regional and local thing where volunteers staffed most of it and they read copy off of the wire services supplemented by information from non-profits. Under the coercive force of NPR, trying to force out any possible competition that came up and serving as the model for a particular form of selling out it has betrayed everything it was supposed to be.
michael e
Well i will split hairs with you Free Spirit.THERE IS NO CORPORATE/IMPERIALIST ANYTHING!Except in the eyes of numbskulls.There ARE 319 million opinions floating about.Some carry more weight than others.At this moment Barrack Obamas are thee most important I suppose.Giving you a good idea about why everything is so F#$ked up.Corporate/imperialistic agenda….are you kidding with that?Only libs believe that clap trap.As far as NPRs new boss.Who gives a rats ass?You should not be so swayed by whatever crap is being strewn by whomever.The left is always seeing politics in every move anyone makes.
TeeJae
The point of the article (which many seemed to have missed) is that conservatives can no longer whine about NPR being “liberal” or “leftist” now that a conservative is running it.
E.J. Heinemann
I think PBS and NPR spend far too much precious airtime broadcasting music shows.
I’d like to see mannerly debates between great spokesmen for opposing points of view on really serious issues.
I’d like to see more heavyweight retired politicians debating, who do not care about re-election, who are willing to express what they feel in their hearts. Maybe more retired pols like Bob Dole and Tom Daschle and Tom Kean.
Should emulate the insightful coverage of large number of news items in the cool and detached yet interesting style of Euro News, which to my mind is now better than BBC.
Also should do thoughtful and deep documentaries about other countries that would inform us about better ways of doing things, in cases where our own methods and approaches are substandard.
I recall Justice Antonin Scalia being criticized for refusing to study law in other countries that may make more sense than our own.
I think PBS should focus on really deep reflection.
I like them for presenting a lot of really good British drama, as this is mind expanding. I’d like to see more Spanish and German and Russian shows.
We spend far too much time navel gazing and ignoring the rest of the world. The world has learned a lot from us that is of great value. But there is a huge amount we can learn from other cultures and other places.
E.J. Heinemann
I’d like to see far more variety: I mentioned more Spanish, German, French material, but also many other countries. Especially China, Japan, and the African countries.
Also, try to license documentaries from AlJazeera, which has produced extremely fine material on conditions in Latin America, all of Asia, and subSaharan Africa, that is not patronizing, that captures the dignity and intelligence of very ordinary people often faced with terrible situations.
Frontline is great. Bill Moyers is great. Charlie Rose has become a bit too intimidating and too ubiquitous, but I still like to watch him: a very good mind but sucks up too much to the powerful. Needs to be a bit more critical and a bit less deferential to the establishment.
With respect to American social and political issues, I think PBS should engage in a search for truth and facts about really important issues. And not engage in a “Republicans say” and “Democrats say” type presentation.
E.J. Heinemann
The original mission of PBS and NPR was to be educational, to tell us things we might not already know, or that we might not fully understand. This should be restored.
Teaching or mind expanding can be sometimes indirect. The original Star Trek, for example. And I would like to see the complete works of Ursula LeGuin rendered as good TV dramas.
If there is any underlying message that public broadcasting really needs to convey is that of concern for our fellow human beings. Wrongs to be righted. Good things to be encouraged and made more widespread.
Perhaps we need to enumerate the really great and innovative shows developed by PBS, to remind people where public broadcasting should be going.
E. Lavelle
So, it sound like NPR decided to go for money instead of journalist integrity. You will get no donation from me and further, I will ask others not to contribute.
E. J. Heinemann
Sorry for all my off topic comments on PBS when the topic was the leadership of NPR. I was a bit tiddly.
Paul Haaga is indeed a very questionable choice to head NPR, and he should be watched closely.
Why can’t NPR hire from within ? Seems to me it would help to have someone really immersed in the issues.
E. J. Heinemann
My experience with NPR is that most of the good stuff is broadcast during the day, while the evening is dominated by music, which in my view is a poor use of air time. I stopped listening quite awhile ago, so maybe this has changed for the better.
E. J. Heinemann
On second thoughts, maybe there is a good rationale for hiring Mr. Haaga, if his job is fundraising. Also, if Mr. Haaga has a secret love for public broadcasting, he might be a relatively good defender against the privatisers. On the other hand he might be a privatiser himself. Or, very likely, an enforcer who will suppress information favorable to liberals and encourage support for conservative points of view.
Marcus Zuckerberg
Hi to every single one, it’s truly a fastidious for me to pay a quick visit this website, it includes priceless Information.|
Nathan W.
What really burns is the fact that Mr. Obama ‘seemed’ to have all this kind of stuff figured out, in separating the ‘public’ from the ‘private’ enterprises – Constitutionally speaking. We now see what the current President AND the SCT couldn’t – that the influence of money over politics is no less obscene now than 100 years ago, when it was forbidden from infiltrating & taking down & destroying civil society institutions, such as the CONSTITUTIONALLY SANCTIONED FREE PRESS (media)… America, being destroyed by its own hand… what could be more ‘imperial’…
Nathan W.
… also, it would probably be instructive to go back & determine ‘WHY’ PBS became necessary in the 1st place: b/c of the omnipotence of regular network news & how so much news WASN’T being reported (during Vietnam) & how programming was ‘literally’ “propaganda”, during this same period. Thus, the NEED to remain independent, autonomous & beholden to the ‘public interest’. The collapse of America’s education system made such overthrows of its ‘public’ institutions. Individually, the common citizen has not a chance to make such a marked policy influence, unlike the ‘influence’ of a billionaire American…
loneagle
Oh great. The agents of the one percenters finalize the strangle hold on production and distribution of everything. That’s just great.
Ginny Martin
Nathan
Or some little boy squirming around with his Fruit of the Looms in a twist. Or some grown up boy with his FOL in a twist.