I spent about two hours today writing to Senator Jim Demint, who wishes to cut taxpayer support to public broadcasting. I don’t write letters to Congress with the intention of having them read and considered, but rather consider it a cathartic action akin to writing an angry letter and then tearing it up. Anyway, here’s what I wrote:

Senator Jim Demint
340 Russell
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
 

Dear Senator Demint,

I was recently shocked and dismayed to learn that you plan to introduce a bill designed to cut federal funding to public broadcast. May I ask why? Your press release leads me to believe that you hope to reduce federal spending and protect free speech, but funding for public broadcasting makes up only a small portion of our federal spending, and I consider it a valuable resource whose very existence is owed to the freedoms we are granted under the U.S. Constitution. The message that our elected officials do not have our best interests in mind is one that has reverberated with voters this season, and I fear that this is one such case.
At first, you seem to be making the case that this is an issue of decreasing federal spending; to quote your press release: “‘The country is over $13 trillion in debt and Congress must find ways to start trimming the federal budget to cut spending.’” I’m curious why you feel the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a good target, considering that its cost to taxpayers has been relatively minor ($4 billion over nearly a decade) compared to other areas. The military, for example, spent $663.3 billion in taxpayer money in 2009 alone. Furthermore, many military efforts (funded with taxpayer dollars) are kept secret from the U.S. public, and in some cases have even targeted U.S. citizens. I’m curious why a leader elected by the people so blindly supports funding for an institution that keeps those people in the dark, so to speak (if not targeting them directly), while suggesting that we de-fund channels that serve to inform those people. At best, it seems like a misguided and half-hearted attempt to “pick the low-hanging fruit” in order to save money whilst ignoring larger and more contentious budget issues (a practice that has led to more intensified budgeting problems in states like Arizona); at worst, it seems like the kind of under-handed political gimmickry that we have been repeatedly told to be weary of from Washington this election season.
At the same time, you seem to suggest that this action is in response to NPR firing news analyst Juan Williams for remarks made on the Fox News cable channel that were inconsistent with the ethical standards for someone in Williams’s position. You and others who call themselves conservatives have been quick to portray this as a freedom of speech issue, and I’d like to hear more about your reasoning on that. First of all, I didn’t notice you or any of your colleagues defending Helen Thomas’s right to free speech when she said that she felt Jewish people living in Israel should “go home.” I feel that Mr. Williams’s remarks were on par with the bigotry Ms. Thomas exhibited, and I don’t consider it morally acceptable to allow bigotry directed at some groups but not others; either you support the right of people to espouse public bigotry and hate, or you don’t. More importantly, Williams’s remarks were clearly a violation of NPR’s ethical standards, standards which are fairly uniform throughout the field of journalism. Surely you don’t feel that the freedom of speech means the right to a “public mouthpiece” to voice your opinions (and, if you do, I’d like to speak with you further about getting some airtime of my own). I worked for a moving company for five years and was required to wear a uniform… was that a violation of my free speech? I’ll get the ball rolling on that lawsuit. But my understanding was that an employer is entirely within its rights to require a certain set of standards from its employees, in or out of the place of employment. If one does not wish to live up to those standards, one is free to find employment elsewhere.
If you feel NPR is undeserving of taxpayer support because they enforce their employee standards and, as you put it, promote a “one-sided” narrative, then I’m wondering when you will introduce legislation cutting off subsidies to large corporations like Clear Channel, Comcast and the News Corporation for doing the same thing. After all, does Fox News not have ethical standards of its own? Also, and you may not be aware of this (though I suspect you are), but Fox News actively and unevenly supports and promotes conservative candidates and causes, and there are many, many documented examples of this. I am well aware that News Corp., along with Comcast and Clear Channel, have donated to your campaign this season. Obviously it would be disingenuous if you were to treat these entities any differently because of their interest in your election— and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, the people and I will be awaiting your actions denouncing News Corp.’s “one-sided” journalism and selective standards.
I, and many others, feel that conglomerate corporations like News Corp., Comcast and the other handful of large corporations who together own greater than 95% of our country’s media do not have an interest in informing the public with objective journalism. If objective and comprehensive journalism, specifically as it pertains to corporate culture, will damage the reputations and profits of these companies, then I am certain those companies will not support or allow it. NPR, on the other hand, is funded overwhelmingly by individual donations and dues. As you yourself agree, NPR and PBS “should be able to find a way to stand on their own” without funding from the CPB, precisely because individual U.S. citizens have given NPR the mandate to investigate and report on matters all over the world. If anything, public broadcasting has proven that it has the support of the taxpayers, and is deserving of any funding it can get, however minuscule compared to other facets of our federal budget. I believe you aren’t expecting to eliminate public broadcasting entirely with this measure, but rather to seize an opportunity to paint public broadcasting as an enemy of the people, rather than a friend. That makes sense considering the special interests with whose support you will almost certainly be re-elected this year… but it won’t make sense to the people who will lose their jobs because of this cut. And, for what it’s worth to you, it also won’t make sense to your constituents who look to public broadcasting to help educate and inform them and their families on a daily basis.
What are the ethical implications of an elected leader who actively seeks to keep his constituents ignorant? What are the implications on the free market if our policy makers de-fund the competitors of all the corporations that financially support them and their party? I don’t believe the carefully-chosen narrative of this election season— that is, that our incumbent politicians have created a problem that only we can solve by voicing our distaste for their actions through the democratic process. I believe that we, as a people, have made the crucial error of letting ourselves become so willfully ignorant that we continue to elect leaders who make only the superficial claim to hold our interests at heart while being controlled and supported by entities who, to put it lightly, do not. I believe this problem is solved when we inform ourselves about not only who a candidate is and who he or she supports, but who or what in turn supports these candidates. So I’ll ask again— what is your goal in de-funding public broadcasting? I don’t believe you aim to fix our country’s fiscal crisis by freeing up what is a relatively small portion of public funds, and I trust that you don’t believe punishing an agent of free press because of actions with which you selectively disagree will enhance our 1st amendment freedoms. I can only deduce that your goals are more in line with securing both your election by the people (kept ignorant without any support for media outlets with a mandate for objectivity) and the funds necessary to continue campaigning (from News Corp., et al.). I have heard repeated warnings of impending fascism in the past two years, typically coming from the right, and targeted at President Obama. But your actions, Senator, seem far more designed to bring about the type of docile and ignorant society that allows powerful, militaristic regimes (according to your online bio, you are a “tireless advocate” for “a strong national defense”) to take hold. With you and your cohorts in power, I am greatly concerned for my individual freedoms, and the collective freedoms that make this country great.

Thank you,