Statist Public Radio And The Government Bias

from SLMN News:

30 July 2010Statist public radio and the government bias


While listening to National Public Radio today, I was struck by how government-centered they really are. I've long noticed the rampant statism on the station. Some on the Right like to refer to NPR as "liberal" but while they do lean towards the Democrats "liberal" really doesn't accurately describe the core ideology of their programs, personalities and news coverage. After listening to several hours of NPR today while working I noticed how every problem that was brought up led to the same question: what is the government going to do about it? From health care, to scientific studies to job creation everything returned this central theme of government intervention. Phrases such as "regulators are scrambling to keep up with technological changes..." and "law-makers are working on a plan to..." abound on NPR. Why do government regulators exist in the first place and why are they bothering people and messing up the market? The free market allocates resources in the most profitable manner and regulates itself without government bureaucrats. Why are there constantly new "laws"? No one can even count all the existing codes, rules and laws (much less understand them all). This bias at NPR is true not only in their news coverage, which is more or less similar to other news coverage on radio and television, but also in virtually all of the many programs they put out every day. And very disturbingly, the listeners who tend to call into the programs seem to be even more statist than the program hosts themselves. Whether they are "conservative" or "liberal," the callers consistently demand more regulation, legislation and a larger nanny state. One elderly-sounding lady who called into a program today started out by saying something like (and I'm paraphrasing), "We allow scientists in our society to review their own studies and journals...." It was clear that to this collectivist-minded woman "we" equals the government and people probably shouldn't be "allowed" to do many of the things they can today. She felt that the government should be in the business of reviewing scientific journals, eliminating the voluntary system peer-review. This rampant attitude has been summed up before as "There ought to be a law...." These types truly have no understanding or love for liberty.







Rather than more legislation, regulation, taxation and the like why can't we have a bit more freedom? Why do others concern themselves with my business transactions, what I may eat or drink or smoke, the type of car I may travel in, what I study in school, etc? Why must everything either be directed operated by the government (like the Post Office, the DMV and public schools - all shining examples of government failure) or else regulated to death by "law-makers." It's not anti-social but rather pro-liberty to say that I want these people like the folks on NPR to leave me alone. If they want a nanny state, they should join voluntary organisations where they can self-regulate each other to death. That's fine with me, but "voluntary" is the key word here. If they hate liberty that's fine, but I cherish my freedom and no majority of liberty-haters should be able to take it away from me. Keep your statism, NPR - I don't want it.

Posted by PalmettoPatriot at 8:12 PM