NPR faces $2.6 million deficit

[raccoonradio]

There has been a loss of "advertising revenue". But, I thought they were non-commercial?
This actually means corporate giving. (Among the big bad corporations that gave to NPR
in 2008, according to a report, was Fox Broadcasting...nice.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...talk-of-cuts/2012/05/16/gIQAKWjkUU_story.html

>>Another problem area: The strong audience growth that NPR’s news and entertainment programs experienced over the past decade appears to have flattened, a potentially worrisome development because more stations are carrying NPR’s programs.

More calls to defund, charges of liberal bias, etc. The poverty wages of some NPR
employees, according to *************:
>>The annual salaries of some of NPR’s “stars” don’t look as if they reflect a failing network: Robert Siegel makes $341,992, Rene Montage $328,309, Steve Inskeep $320,950, Scott Simon $311,958, and Michelle Norris $279,900.
http://www.*************/Big-Journalism/2012/05/17/NPR-Having-Financial-Trouble

The FCC should let them run ads. "Car Talk will be right back after this message from
Ben and Jerry's." No more taxpayer funding, please. They'd survive, just let em run ads
(REAL ads not these donorship announcements)

 

[aaronread]

The FCC should let them run ads.

Not the FCC's call to make. It would require a modification of the U.S.C. by Congress...which has no appetite to do so. Why should they? The Democrats find it more advantageous to defend Big Bird's non-commercial status from the evil Republicans, the Republicans find it a handy way to get the base excited about those tax-n-spend Democrats without ever having to take action. Both sides have reason to keep things just as they are.

In a more roundabout way, the courts could change it, I guess...although the decision by the 9th Circuit Court striking down the prohibition of political or issue ads on NCE stations DID find sufficient justification to allow the ban on commercial advertising to stand. So not too likely to change via the courts.

 

[TheBigA]

There has been a loss of "advertising revenue". But, I thought they were non-commercial?

The term "advertising revenue" was in the headline, written by the Post. NPR doesn't advertise, and actually their funding announcements are very conservative. The fact is that all of media is in a depression. NPR is not immune. What really needs to be done is for the tax laws to be changes so that corporations are more encouraged to give to non-profits.

>>The annual salaries of some of NPR’s “stars” don’t look as if they reflect a failing network:

A few things to point out: Those are a small group of show hosts. The rest of the staff make substantially less. These are all senior staff, with more than 20 years seniority, and reflects multiple cost of living increases. All on-air staff (and all other newsies) are members of AFTRA, and their salaries are set by the union with additional performance bonuses. Compare their salaries to the hosts of Nightline or the network newscasts.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It would require a modification of the U.S.C. by Congress...which has no appetite to do so. Why should they? The Democrats find it more advantageous to defend Big Bird's non-commercial status from the evil Republicans, the Republicans find it a handy way to get the base excited about those tax-n-spend Democrats without ever having to take action. Both sides have reason to keep things just as they are.

Only people who think today's dysfunctional political rhetoric has some legitimate place in society can look upon today's circumstances of political warfare over Public Broadcasting as having "some kind of socially redeeming value".

We need for "a gang of six" or something to sit down with the FCC and with the leadership of Public Broadcasting and come back with rational modifications if appropriate. Once we get that SUPER IMPORTANT, EARTH SHAKING, NATION PARALYZING topic cleared up, then Congress and the President can leisurely take up the minor, insignificant topics like unemployment, nuclear arms control, protecting the economy, etc. You know... all the things that don't affect people. But getting NPR strightened out... that is priority number one. If we let that go on un-repaired people are going to die, children are going to go hungry, and space traversing objects are going to crash into San Francisco bay. :

 

[northwoods]

Privatize it. Save the taxpayers money and get the government out of a business they know nothing about in the first place.

 

[nocomradio]

Privatize it. Save the taxpayers money and get the government out of a business they know nothing about in the first place.

Bingo!

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful? Let NPR try to stand on its own and if it cannot, then let it fail. Business of any sort is pretty simple: You need as much or more revenue coming in than what is going out. That is the same whether you are broadcasting, selling widgets, or running a convenience market. The government however does not seem to grasp this very simple concept. They are more apt to keep tossing money at the problem until it crashes and burns spectacularly.

 

[TheBigA]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful? Let NPR try to stand on its own and if it cannot, then let it fail.

Right. Commercial radio is doing a great job of serving the public. The circumstances that led to the creation of NPR 45 years ago have not gotten better. Radio stations are doing LESS local news, not more. Radio stations are providing LESS intelligent talk, not more. Radio stations are becoming more corporate and less local. So you want to take away any alternatives. If there was no non-commercial radio, there would be no place to hear classical music, jazz, or alternative rock. Commercial radio has given up on those formats. The American public deserves a choice in media.

By the way, the government isn't running NPR. Just providing a portion of its funding. NPR is an independent organization that gets federal funding just like millions of other organizations.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful?

Yup. I can. And if it doesn't get screwed up by some one by the time you get there, you will experience it someday, if you a lucky enough to live a long life.

Medicare runs smoothly. (Hospital and Medical)

Congress got the bright idea to PRIVATIZE the Part D prescription coverage for seniors. It is run by CORPORATIONSf a.k.a. insurance companies.

To put it mildly, dealing with Part D is a bitch! Dealing with the government run Medicare is a piece of cake.

 

[nocomradio]

Right. Commercial radio is doing a great job of serving the public. The circumstances that led to the creation of NPR 45 years ago have not gotten better. Radio stations are doing LESS local news, not more. Radio stations are providing LESS intelligent talk, not more. Radio stations are becoming more corporate and less local. So you want to take away any alternatives. If there was no non-commercial radio, there would be no place to hear classical music, jazz, or alternative rock. Commercial radio has given up on those formats. The American public deserves a choice in media.

By the way, the government isn't running NPR. Just providing a portion of its funding. NPR is an independent organization that gets federal funding just like millions of other organizations.

I agree, commercial radio is doing a very poor job of serving the community. BUT, they are making money.

NPR isn't. Without their cash infusions from the government, they'd be bankrupt in a short time. If they were truly serving the public so much better than the commercial stations, they'd be self-supporting. They are not. No matter how you slice it, they are a sponge, soaking up cash from the government trough to no good end. The government may not run them totally, but whenever the government begins to fund anything, they do and will have a say in how its run and we all know where that leads.

As for Medicare, I have not yet had that pleasure, but I don't look forward to it either. Having dealt with the VA, SBA, IRS and other government programs and agencies over the years and sometimes at length, I can't imagine it being much better.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I agree, commercial radio is doing a very poor job of serving the community. BUT, they are making money.

NPR isn't. Without their cash infusions from the government, they'd be bankrupt in a short time.

NPR seems to be plowing a lot of money into research and development. If the government money dried up, the promotion and research centered on digital broadcasting could be cut in a hurry. The world wide collection of news correspondents could be cut way, way back and they would still have international news coverage that no commercial broadcaster in America comes close to matching.

I think you over-estimate how much NPR depends on government money.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR isn't. Without their cash infusions from the government, they'd be bankrupt in a short time.

How do you know that? They're a non-profit. It's not the job of a non-profit to make money. And they don't get "cash infusions," but appropriations that are made by Congress. The money doesn't go to NPR, but to independent member stations who buy the programming. That same Congress appropriates similar amounts of money for thousands of non-profits, all of which are in similar straits because of the economy. Cutting off federal funding would hurt local public radio stations, not NPR. That's why Congress continues to appropriate them the money.

The government may not run them totally, but whenever the government begins to fund anything, they do and will have a say in how its run and we all know where that leads.

You obviously don't know anything about the public broadcasting laws, and how they were written to prevent any kind of government interference. They've worked very well for over 45 years, and there has never been any government interference. The real problem is that the government isn't enforcing public service laws on commercial broadcasters. They get to use the public airwaves to make their owners rich, and no one seems to be looking out for the public. Public broadcasters have the exact same government controls as commercial broadcasters, regardless of funding.

 

[listener-in]

I agree, commercial radio is doing a very poor job of serving the community. BUT, they are making money.

Which makes everything all right then, doesn't it.

 

[amfmxm]

Hey y'all, Big A is absolutely right on all of this.

Public radio was established (more or less as an afterthought, since TV was the real focus) by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to provide programming considered "not viable" by commercial broadcasters, and they've been doing an excellent job for 45 years.

So excellent that public radio stations are now #1 in Top 10 markets like Washington, DC (WAMU) and San Francisco (KQED), whipping the likes of Clear Channel, CBS, and Cumulus--by providing the kind of in-depth news and intelligent talk that the "C Companies" would never touch. "Too expensive"--meaning that generating 60 percent cash flow isn't nearly as easy to accomplish when lots of bright, skilled humans are required. Hopefully getting their asses kicked by non-comms operating on a fraction of the budget might inspire the commercial guys to do a better job. If wishes were horses.

Last time I looked, taxpayer funding accounted for somewhere around 10 percent of public broadcasting's budget and is most critical for the stations serving the tiniest markets--places deemed "not viable" by most commercial broadcasters. Western Kansas. Eastern Montana. Northern Michigan or Northern Wisconsin. (Man, it's a long way between towns--and when you finally get there, they don't need to buy no spots. Hell, it's the only grocery store within 50 miles. What's the point of advertising--they're gonna come here anyway)! Don't need no underwriting spots, either.

FWIW, I'm a commercial broadcaster--and have been for 40 years--but also spent 5 years working in public broadcasting. And I'll attest that they do great work on the pubcasting side, and merit every dime of taxpayer funding they get. At the risk of offending some folks, let me kindly suggest that if you haven't worked (especially in management) on both sides of this fence, you're talking out of your proverbial butt.

In an age where SEO determines news "content" in commercial media (look it up), public broadcasting's legitimate news service is the closest thing even resembling real journalism left in American electronic media. Playful kittens & Justin Bieber dominate the headlines, while Wall Street rips us off for billions and never hits the screen.

Public broadcasting isn't just a damn bargain. It may be our lifesaver.

 

[aaronread]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful?

Medicare.
NASA.
Transportation.
Schools.
Drinking water.

All things that either work much better under a public government structure than they have under private, or have failed largely because they're expect to compete in a free-market environment while having lots of political restrictions that're guaranteed to make them fail (Amtrak and the USPS come immediately to mind there).

Speaking of taxpayer dollars, I find it amusing that all the "I don't want taxpayer money funding NPR" kind of conveniently forget that commercial broadcasting receives far more taxpayer subsidies than public broadcasting does; sponsors can deduct their ad buys from their taxes.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful?

Speaking of taxpayer dollars, I find it amusing that all the "I don't want taxpayer money funding NPR" kind of conveniently forget that commercial broadcasting receives far more taxpayer subsidies than public broadcasting does; sponsors can deduct their ad buys from their taxes.

That one, my friend, is a KEEPER!

I kind of drifted in-and-out of sleep this morning with the first hour of Morning Edition in the background. The interview with the goat-herder in the Gobi Desert: tell me what commercial broadcast newsroom will have a story anywhere in this country today to match or top that bit of journalism.

 

[TheBigA]

Speaking of taxpayer dollars, I find it amusing that all the "I don't want taxpayer money funding NPR" kind of conveniently forget that commercial broadcasting receives far more taxpayer subsidies than public broadcasting does; sponsors can deduct their ad buys from their taxes.

Not only that...many government agencies BUY advertising at premium rates from advertisers every day. All those drunk driving spots you see and hear are actual commercials, not PSAs. I bet the budget for those spot buys exceeds the CPB appropriation.

 

[nocomradio]

I agree, commercial radio is doing a very poor job of serving the community. BUT, they are making money.

Which makes everything all right then, doesn't it.

No one including the government can tell a private business how they should run it, even if it is poorly. I don't agree that anyone doing a crappy job should get paid for it, but it happens all the time. They are self-correcting in time.

 

[nocomradio]

How do you know that? They're a non-profit. It's not the job of a non-profit to make money

Then how, pray tell, does a non-profit spend so much money that they are essentially broke? They get so many tax breaks, subsidies and other help that they should be doing fine. As a business of nearly 20 years now, I have to watch every penny or else I end up bankrupt. Not so for things like NPR and other organizations fed at the public trough.

Say what you want, but from a financial standpoint, there isn't any way to excuse poor financial management. They are just as bad as the evil corporations everyone cries about on a daily basis these days.

 

[TheBigA]

No one including the government can tell a private business how they should run it, even if it is poorly.

Sure they can. That's what the FCC is supposed to do. That's the price stations pay for using the public airwaves for free. Private companies like Clear Channel must follow government rules and regulations. Broadcasting is a regulated industry.

But as I said, beyond the standard rules and regs, the federal government does NOT tell NPR what to do. There is no contact at all between the government and NPR management. That's the role of CPB. And even CPB doesn't tell NPR what to do. When NPR went through its first financial crisis, they expected CPB to bail them out. They didn't. That job was left to the member stations. In this current crisis, this debt will be born by the stations, not the government, nor anyone else.

 

[TheBigA]

Then how, pray tell, does a non-profit spend so much money that they are essentially broke?

Did you read the article? Obviously not. They operate on a budget that assumes a certain amount of revenue. That revenue has dipped below expectation. But they're not broke. Nowhere in the article does anyone say they're broke or bankrupt. Those are for-profit words that don't apply. They have cash reserves they can draw on. Like most non-profits, they have an endowment they can dip into. And they can raise their dues to affiliates. I expect that will be discussed at the next board meeting. And they will discuss cutting expenses, which they've already done this past year. The federal appropriation has been made and covers them until 2014. They's not an issue here, and won't affect their operations. They will not be bailed out by the government or any government agency.