Actions and responses
By Robert T. Smith
web posted May 12, 2025
For an exceedingly long time, the social conversation driven by the media is typically about the response to liberal actions. This is clear again in the controversy over funding NPR and PBS, and Harvard.
National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service receive funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Aligned with Lyndon Johnson's great society efforts, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 was established within and for a different society than now exists.
The Vietnam war and anti-war protests were ongoing, race riots were taking place in many cities, Dr. Martin Luther King was making his mark throughout the country, and space exploration was in full swing. Information was limited to local news in local newspapers and a few national newspapers, limited radio stations, and typically only a couple of television stations. A vastly different country now exists with new and different world events and the explosion of non-publicly funded information sources now abundantly available.
High end ideas were the foundation of the Public Broadcasting Act. President Johnson's statement when signing the act indicated:
It announces to the world that our nation wants more than just material wealth; our nation wants more than a 'chicken in every pot.' We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.
Childhood memories of Sesame Street or Mister Roger's Neighborhood were formed by many millions. Older adults were exposed to educational information about culture and issues that affected their everyday life. How then has funding this once noble cause become controversial?
As clearly elucidated by a long time public radio veteran of public broadcasting, the change came when there was a transition from providing information and education to telling listeners how to think. The agenda changed from noble cause to another tool in the culture war that is tilted toward the left. To those on the right who have watched public broadcasting change from childhood to today, this is no epiphany. The audience for NPR and PBS is now arguably a narrow segment of the target audience that was in the past everyone.
The extensive litany of bias from NPR and PBS was on full display during their recent congressional hearing and extensively listed in many sources. Is the response to NPR and PBS the story, or is it the change of their agenda? Reading or watching the reporting on this issue again demonstrates the cultural divide in our society. Regardless of which side of this equation you fall within, requiring all to fund the NPR and PBS "public" resources should no longer be a question, they do not provide a desired service for all.
Similarly, Harvard public funding has also been targeted for elimination. The leftward drift of Harvard and many of the once universally agreed esteemed colleges is, again, no epiphany to many.
Harvard has engaged in the culture war agenda slanted to the left that is demonstrated by its professors, college course offerings, and political positions. As an add-on issue, current anti-Israel / antisemitism of the left is documented by Harvard even in their own study and by their own admission.
The Harvard example is a tragic general dichotomy of worthwhile scientific endeavors that could be funded to the benefit of all that will be impacted by the behavior of the controlling leftist liberal arts-driven leaders of this and many similar institutions. Is the response to Harvard's leftward drift the story, or is it Harvard's changed agenda?
Again, regardless of which side of this equation you fall within, providing public funding to NPR, PBS, or Harvard should no longer be a question. These organizations no longer provide a balanced cultural approach with which to inform and educate in an unbiased manner, so public funding should not be provided.
Robert T. Smith is an environmental scientist who spends his days enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness with his family. He confesses to cling to his liberty, guns and religion, with antipathy toward the arrogant ruling elites throughout the country.
