NPR A-Reps Trying Again To Keep NPR In 1971

Once again, an NPR executive has tried to move the network into new media and once again he's gotten fired for it.

NYTimes.com said:

Major Reorganization at NPR as Chief Content Officer Leaves

NPR is losing a chief content officer and gaining a chief operating officer as part of a major reorganization of the media organization three months into the tenure of its chief executive, Jarl Mohn.

Kinsey Wilson, NPR’s chief content officer and the architect of its digital strategy over the last six years, will leave at the end of the week and will not be replaced, NPR said Monday. In addition to overseeing new programs like the midday show “Here and Now,” Mr. Wilson led the development of the NPR One mobile app, which was introduced in July. He also put together a deal making NPR the first news service on Apple’s iTunes Radio.

Those who felt NPR in the past had been caught flat-footed as its audience migrated to mobile and digital platforms widely admired Mr. Wilson’s initiatives. However, some managers at NPR’s local member radio stations have been unhappy, concerned that donations will fall if listeners bypass them to get their favorite shows. ...
READ MORE
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/b...ntent-officer-leaves.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Click to expand...

It's been said before: An NPR "member station" is a fund-raising organization with a satellite dish. A-Reps from the stations, usually the station managers, control NPR. These managers are NGO fund-raisers and public sector bureaucrats. They seem to think that if they keep NPR out of "new media," their listeners won't leave (and more importantly, won't stop pledging). Greed and stupidity is a power combination.

The former DJ and vulture capitalist now running NPR is either stuck in the 70s, when he last worked in radio, or has caved in.

NPR keeps becoming more like Pacifica in how it operates.

And the A-Reps are following the path to irrelevancy and obsolescence used by a lot of companies that aren't around any more.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Fred, I can see your lips flapping but I have trouble hearing what you are saying.

I recently "went modern" and got a couple of Andorid devices as new toys. Being a fan of NPR and a fan of our local outlet for Atlanta, I have plunged into the APPS available that I assume constitute what you are calling "new media".

If I ran a small market station.... which was once my dream... I would be busting my bohunkus to try and match at the local level what I see NPR doing with New Media.

You must live in an area where your local NPR outlet is a second-class back-water operation.... or yo would have a higher opinion of those folks.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you read The Times' article. Some guy got fired because the they thought he was doing too much in digital media. Yes, some people think NPR could be doing more, as the article says. But that's not the issue here. For the second time (at least) a senior executive is fired because the A-reps apparently don't want NPR to do anything at all. The article indicates NPR's new NPR One app may have been the final nail in the guy's coffin.

Where I live has what is supposed to be one of the top "member stations." Maybe three of the top stations. The manager is over-paid. The employees were in near open revolt. The station has enough money for prime real estate, a lavish building, state of the art equipment, high management salaries (not shared with those who produce content) and enough left over to start some for-profit subsidiaries. And they run infomercials on the TV side and do puff-pieces for radio corporate sponsors.

Member stations trying to protect their pledge dollars are going to kill NPR, their golden goose. These stations were nothing before NPR and would be nothing again without them. Listener loyalty is to NPR, not to these local fund-raising organizations.

NPR hired as its new CEO (the guy who did the firing) a local station board chair - a station that just happens to be co-owned and operated by NPR's major competitor. Gotta wonder whose interests this former DJ is protecting. Only in public radio.

I appreciate your hear, see, speak no evil philosophy. But sometimes there is evil to point out. Or greed, arrogance and incompetence.

So you don't see this change as being related to a new CEO wanting to bring in his own top people? I'm sure you'd find fault with that too.

From what I've read about this new CEO, he's a lot more about digital strategy than you give him credit for. Seems to me you may have criticized him for that when he was named. You overlook the fact that since he arrived two other longtime news staffers have also resigned. This particular guy has been there for six years. If the stations wanted to get rid of him, they had ample time to do it before. These people with "chief" in their title are often closest to the CEO. That's why I believe this is more about new direction than station retribution.

TheBigA said:

So you don't see this change as being related to a new CEO wanting to bring in his own top people? I'm sure you'd find fault with that too.

From what I've read about this new CEO, he's a lot more about digital strategy than you give him credit for. Seems to me you may have criticized him for that when he was named. You overlook the fact that since he arrived two other longtime news staffers have also resigned. This particular guy has been there for six years. If the stations wanted to get rid of him, they had ample time to do it before. These people with "chief" in their title are often closest to the CEO. That's why I believe this is more about new direction than station retribution.

Click to expand...

I do see a problem with somebody getting rid of people just to bring in his own people. But that's typical US style management. When in doubt, fire somebody. The problem is there wasn't a problem under Wilson. And if there was, usually the person in the job is best equipped to fix it (barring gross incompetence or malfeasance).

And why do the A-Reps keep insisting on bringing in new CEOs from outside? Why so much turn-over among those with "chief" in their title? Sounds like the problem is the meddling A-Reps.

And look at some of the people on the NPR Board. The manager of a station in Philly, hired from Fox - from FOX! - by a station that carries zero NPR programming but is considered a "member." And the manager of a Boston station that owns NPR's one of NPR's two major competitors. And the new CEO comes from the board of a station co-owned by NPR's other major competitor. Can you say "conflict of interest," boys and girls?

FredLeonard said:

I do see a problem with somebody getting rid of people just to bring in his own people. But that's typical US style management. When in doubt, fire somebody. The problem is there wasn't a problem under Wilson. And if there was, usually the person in the job is best equipped to fix it (barring gross incompetence or malfeasance).

Click to expand...

But the article clearly says he wasn't fired. His job was eliminated. In my opinion, there are way too many of these people with "chief" titles. Who needs them?

You seem to be reinterpreting this article to suit your own agenda. No big surprise.

TheBigA said:

But the article clearly says he wasn't fired. His job was eliminated. In my opinion, there are way too many of these people with "chief" titles. Who needs them?

You seem to be reinterpreting this article to suit your own agenda. No big surprise.

Click to expand...

Not fired; job eliminated. Big difference. And reinterpretation is your game, Dale.

FredLeonard said:

Not fired; job eliminated. Big difference. And reinterpretation is your game, Dale.

Click to expand...

Not at all. If they had a problem with what Kinsey did, they could have told him "Don't do this." Have they changed or canceled any of the digital initiatives he began? No.

As the article points out, NPR is over budget. Getting rid of a few over-paid chiefs is a good way to save money. Nothing more to the story.

TheBigA said:

Not at all. If they had a problem with what Kinsey did, they could have told him "Don't do this." Have they changed or canceled any of the digital initiatives he began? No.

As the article points out, NPR is over budget. Getting rid of a few over-paid chiefs is a good way to save money. Nothing more to the story.

Click to expand...

OK, that's your interpretation.

Lots of ways NPR could save money. But they have that fancy new building and an employee restaurant with an executive chef to pay for. They could shut down NPR West but the West Coast members would feel slighted. The new boss could work for a dollar a year since he doesn't need the money but no. They cancel Day to Day and everybody gets fired. They cancel Tell Me More and they find some make-work jobs for the host and producers (affirmative action at work). And notice the person who got fired here is a White male; the person who takes over is job is female.

FredLeonard said:

And notice the person who got fired here is a White male; the person who takes over is job is female.

Click to expand...

There goes FakeLiberal again, waaah waaah waaaaaahhh.

FredLeonard said:

OK, that's your interpretation.

Click to expand...

That's NOT my interpretation. That's what the article says, and that's what the facts themselves indicate.

But once again, simply respond to my point: If this was done because this guy was expanding into online that threatened local stations, why haven't any of his initiatives been canceled? Just getting rid of one guy doesn't get rid of the digital platforms he built. They continue to operate, and the people involved are still doing the work. In fact if you look at all of the CEOs and executives NPR has fired over the years, the work in digital each of them began still remains. Had they been fired for their work, it would have been shut down, and it never was. Because everyone realizes the future for NPR is online, including the people on the Board.

Regarding saving money with the new building, it was paid for from the money they made selling the old one. The "executive chef" story was made up. It never existed. They have a cafeteria. Any excessive expenses have already been cut there. As for a man being replaced by a woman, note that the other two executives who left were women. And the CEO position, once held by a woman, is now filled with a man.