Wednesday night on NewsNation, On Balance host Leland Vittert battled woefully unprepared liberal strategist Kaivan Shroff on whether it was appropriate for Twitter to slap National Public Radio (NPR) Tuesday night with a “US state-affiliated media” label with Vittert noting it does, in fact, derive part of its budget from the U.S. government.
Shroff hilariously denounced the label, but unintentionally proved the label’s accuracy by proclaiming countries are better off with a state-run outlet to compete against everyone else.
Vittert led into the debate by teeing up a soundbite of White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defending the outlet as “there’s no doubt of the independence of NPR’s journalists”.
He then asked Shroff whether it’s “a good thing for the White House press secretary to be weighing in on what news organizations the White House deems hard hitting and worth.”
After correcting Vitter on the pronunciation of his name, Shroff cheered Jean-Pierre’s comments and called it “an important moment...because...comparing our publicly funded journalism to state media from Russia and China is incredibly inappropriate.”
Shroff cited NPR having “local affiliates” providing local news when other local stations are “dying” and would otherwise leave a news “vacuum.” Vittert interjected to ask whether this means he believes “publicly funded journalism is better than privately-funded journalism.”
Shroff responded he does believe there has to be “some publicly funded journalism” and, when asked why, he said that “allows...a diversity of opinion that isn’t necessarily backed by corporate interests” like Sinclair (a competitor of NewsNation’s parent company, Nexstar).
Vittert then took issue with Shroff’s word games (click “expand”):
VITTERT: But — how — how — how can — saying — you’re saying that because something’s funded by revenue that it is not independent, but somehow something that is funded by the federal government is independent even though they are dependent on a certain party that it to be in power to fund them.
SHROFF: Well, no there’s laws that —
VITTERT: Well, yes.
SHROFF: — [inaudible] —
VITTERT: No, I mean, Republicans don’t like NPR.
SHROFF: — supporting [inaudible] that fund NPR.
VITTERT: So, if — if Republicans get their way, NPR would be defunded. How does that not create a — a real moral hazard for NPR?
SHROFF: I just don’t see the point in equating what — what you’re talking about with what we’re talking about when we say China propaganda media outlets. Do you disagree with that?
VITTERT: Well, first of all, it’s not my job to pass judgment on — on what is and is not a media organization. Elon — Elon Musk defined it this way. “State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content for financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control of production and distribution.”
Shroff further buried himself by saying Twitter’s definition of state media ignored the fact that “[t]here’s no editorial intervention by the government in NPR’s reporting,” but Vittert noted it would be applied to a media outlet receiving taxpayer funds regardless of whether the government has “direct” or “indirect” control over production.
The face-planting wasn’t over as Shroff concluded by not understanding Vittert’s question of whether he’d then support a government-funded outlet that’d lean right to counteract NPR as well as the basic fact that Republicans have tried repeatedly over the years to defund NPR (click “expand”):
VITTERT: Yeah. And — and there’s a lot — there’s an entire political party — half of America — thinks NPR is in the tank against them and Republicans would like to defund NPR and — and allow it to sink or swim like every other journalist organization. I’m just wondering: What would you be opposed to government funding for a conservative-leaning out?
SHROFF: But half of America might think this outlet is partisan. Does that mean that what you’re saying isn’t illegitimate? I don’t understand.
VITTERT: No, it means we shouldn’t get government funding.
SHROFF: But it’s bipartisan government funding.
VITTERT: No, it’s not.
SHROFF: Well, has Congress — has the Republican Congress tried to —
VITTERT: Yes.
SHROFF: — cut funding to NPR yet?
VITTERT: Yes.
SHROFF: Have they done that?
VITTERT: Yes.
SHROFF: They’ve done that this term?
VITTERT: They’ve tried.
SHROFF: When’d they do that?
VITTERT: They’ve tried many times.
SHROFF: When — when have they done that in 2023? January 2023? The new Congress? When have they done that?
To see the relevant transcript from April 5, click “expand.”
NewsNation’s On Balance With Leland Vittert
April 5, 2023
7:29 p.m. EasternLELAND VITTERT: Twitter owner Elon Musk labeled National Public radio — this is Twitter’s label — “state affiliated media.” For reference, that’s how they label media organizations in China and Russia. I say media organizations. They’re actually state propaganda. As you might imagine, NPR and its supporters are not exactly thrilled with the designation and to be fair, NPR’s had a few rough weeks. They recently tweeted out, “the international governing body for track and field will ban trans women athletes from elite women’s competition, citing a priority for fairness over inclusion, despite limited scientific research involving elite trans athletes” The common sense police had a few thoughts on that. They issued a half correction, but what’s interesting is who is defending NPR.
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: [t]here’s no doubt of the independence of NPR’s journalists and has been — if you’ve ever been on the receiving end of their — of their questions, you know this. You know that they have their independence in journalism. NPR journalists work digitally [sic] to hold public officials accountable and inform the American people. The hard-hitting, independence nature of their coverage speaks — speaks for itself and so I’ll leave it there.
VITTERT: [LAUGHS] Join me now, Kayvon [sic] Shroff, senior adviser for the Institute for Education and the former digital organizer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Look, we can argue till the — till sun comes — sun comes up tomorrow morning about whether NPR is a liberal news organization, how hard hitting they are, on and on. Fine. Either way, is it really a good thing for the White House press secretary to be weighing in on what news organizations the White House deems hard hitting and worth?
KAIVAN SHROFF: Kaivan, good to be with you. You know, I think this was an important moment for the White House to speak out because you’ve got to imagine comparing our publicly funded journalism to state media from Russia and China is incredibly inappropriate. And you’ve got to think that China and Russia absolutely love seeing that. Public funding for journalism is important, especially as we see local journalism, which NPR, you know, has local affiliates all over the dying and because when that happens, there’s this vacuum that news —
VITTERT: Well, so — so I just want to understand. So, you’re saying that publicly funded journalism is better than privately-funded journalism?
SHROFF: — no, I’m saying that it’s important to have, you know, at least some publicly funded journalism.
VITTERT: Why?
SHROFF: Because I think that, you know, it allows us to have a diversity of opinion that isn’t necessarily backed by corporate interests, right? Like, we’ve seen how when a big media conglomerate like Sinclair goes around and buys up all the local news outlets and then sends them talking points. That has an impact on our democracy. So, having sort of independent, publicly funded journalism, which is what NPR is and let’s be clear —
VITTERT: But — how — how — how can — saying — you’re saying that because something’s funded by revenue that it is not independent, but somehow something that is funded by the federal government is independent even though they are dependent on a certain party that it to be in power to fund them.
SHROFF: Well, no there’s laws that —
VITTERT: Well, yes.
SHROFF: — [inaudible] —
VITTERT: No, I mean, Republicans don’t like NPR.
SHROFF: — supporting [inaudible] that fund NPR.
VITTERT: So, if — if Republicans get their way, NPR would be defunded. How does that not create a — a real moral hazard for NPR?
SHROFF: I just don’t see the point in equating what — what you’re talking about with what we’re talking about when we say China propaganda media outlets. Do you disagree with that?
VITTERT: Well, first of all, it’s not my job to pass judgment on — on what is and is not a media organization. Elon — Elon Musk defined it this way. “State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content for financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control of production and distribution.”
SHROFF: Of course. So, here’s what’s missing.
VITTERT: Elon Musk says it “seems accurate.”
SHROFF: — here’s what’s missing from that definition. There’s no editorial intervention by the government in NPR’s reporting. That — that’s the relevant difference that I think we’re talking about here.
VITTERT: Well, except it says “direct or indirect.” I go back to this.
SHROFF: It wasn’t direct.
VITTERT: Well, it’s indirect that the funding is provided by the government, by the federal government, us the taxpayer.
SHROFF: For decades. For decades.
VITTERT: Yeah. And — and there’s a lot — there’s an entire political party — half of America — thinks NPR is in the tank against them and Republicans would like to defund NPR and — and allow it to sink or swim like every other journalist organization. I’m just wondering: What would you be opposed to government funding for a conservative-leaning out.
SHROFF: But half of America might think this outlet is partisan. Does that mean that what you’re saying isn’t illegitimate? I don’t understand.
VITTERT: No, it means we shouldn’t get government funding.
SHROFF: But it’s bipartisan government funding.
VITTERT: No, it’s not.
SHROFF: Well, has Congress — has the Republican Congress tried to —
VITTERT: Yes.
SHROFF: — cut funding to NPR yet?
VITTERT: Yes.
SHROFF: Have they done that?
VITTERT: Yes.
SHROFF: They’ve done that this term?
VITTERT: They’ve tried.
SHROFF: When’d they do that?
VITTERT: They’ve tried many times.
SHROFF: When — when have they done that in 2023? January 2023? The new Congress? When have they done that?
VITTERT: The — the new Republican Congress hasn’t gotten a lot done. We can all agree on that.
SHROFF: Okay. But the [inaudible] has a [inaudible] to it.
VITTERT: Kaivan, I’ve got — I’ve gotta run. Thank you.
SHROFF: Okay, bye.
