NPR's Public Editor is supposed to represent the audience. They proclaim, "The Public Editor stands as a source of independent accountability. Created by NPR's board of directors, the Public Editor serves as a bridge between the newsroom and the audience." But more often -- especially now with the threat of defunding -- there's not independence or accountability. There's just pro-NPR lobbying!
The latest dispatch from Public Editor Kelly McBride (who keeps her day job at the left-wing Poynter Institute) comes under this headline:
We can't answer audience questions about #DefundNPR without talking about the larger implications for public media
How informed do we want Americans to be?
After explaining how NPR is being evaluated by DOGE and the FCC, McBride ran a smattering of comments, and then claimed government-funded media is a boon to democracy:
Public media is, by definition, media that is funded by the government. Public broadcasting systems exist in almost every democracy. The strongest democracies, as measured by the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, have strong public media systems.
Leftists always argue that Democracy and Democrats are pretty much the same thing, so a "public" broadcasting system that aids the Democrats also aids Democracy. They know the Democrats always back their subsidies, to award the teamwork. They also argue that "public" media represents a "more informed" public, not a more manipulated and propagandized public.
Here is the tell: NPR types need the government support for their branding. They believe it gives them more moral authority, and an image of steadiness and balance -- which they don't deserve. Obviously, NPR could go on without taxpayer money, but they can't stand that, it's not "public."
Could NPR exist on individual donors alone? No. If it did, it wouldn't be considered public media; it would be private nonprofit media. And that wouldn't solve the root problem that drives this conversation. There's a growing group of local nonprofit media companies across the country.
Then there's this laughable argument from an ersatz Republican:
Even though it's a small amount, taking the government money out of NPR could actually backfire and make NPR less moderate, said Paul Haaga Jr. He's a Republican who has served on NPR's board and as its interim CEO.
This assumes that NPR is anywhere within miles of "moderate" now! Yes, if you removed the taxpayer money and added Soros money, it might tilt left. But it already does...and then Republicans aren't paying for their own rhetorical beating.
McBride closed with her usual state of play, implying the Republican critique is in bad faith, and no one (especially her) should have to address it, since they want to defund it, which she equates with "eliminating" it. Their arguments are "disingenuous."
After quoting from the Heritage Project 2025 text on the relentless liberal bias of public broadcasting, this was her "rebuttal" -- that you can dismiss charges of bias just by saying NPR serves people "not covered by commercial news."
Overshadowed by the debate about NPR is the debate is about the mission of public media in a democracy. Should the government support a safety net that ensures that journalists document the stories of people, places and topics not covered by commercial news? Should we guarantee that quality news and information is available to communities not served by commercial newsrooms, because those audiences are not considered financially profitable?
It's a mistake to conflate the Republican critique of NPR with their larger objective of eliminating public media. NPR is the most visible manifestation of public media. But they are not the same thing.
There is no way to eliminate the small amount of government money that supports NPR without causing significant harm to the whole public media system. Undermining public media would weaken the entire information ecosystem, which would ultimately lead to a less informed American public.
If McBride were interested at all in "independence" or "accountability," she would nudge NPR bosses and staff to answer questions about why NPR is so hostile to conservatives. But she thinks that's what makes NPR good. That's what the "information ecosystem" is designed to do. That's why NPR named her "Public Editor." She's more of a lapdog than a watchdog.
