What a great idea! It seems NPR's government revenues are a modest enough percentage of its needed long-term budget (especially as it continues emphasizing podcasts and streaming) that freeing itself from government money would be a game-changing win. I'd carry that idea forward to what I consider well-intentioned but often misguided attempts to pass laws like New York State's to have government subsidize local media. (See Richard's story on the unintended consequences of New York State's law.)
As a retired NPR affiliate manager, I submit a couple of clarifications:
1. An NPR affiliate can select and air programming from any provider. Most choose not to because (with a few notable exceptions) their listeners want either NPR or local programming. NPR also negotiates with stations to keep NPR programming on their airwaves when budgets are tight.
2. Threatening to lock me in a room or face a loss of funding from national funders would have no effect since stations of my size were never invited into those rooms in the first place. Affiliates with good, local support have it because they are already producing good, local programming. No need for the locked room.
Though beside the point, you and Berlin err about the supposed lack of balance in origin of the Covid virus coverage by much of the media. The science media’s skepticism about a lab produced novel virus able to spread human to human and also wreak havoc was justified. Why? First, there was no evidence ever produced showing the Wuhan lab had accomplished such a feat, or knew how, despite its research fiddling around with bat derived coronavirus samples. Second, since every human virus has had its origin in animals, why should this one not follow this rule? Especially so since other somewhat related SARS viruses that have spread to humans in recent years have had their origin in animals. Wuhan’s wet market contains all the elements needed for transmitting a coronavirus to workers or customers, especially since so many early cases were tracked back to folks who had been infected the market. Attacking the historically careful and extremely skilled NPR science team with an argument that it wasn’t balanced is akin to reporting that Trump’s election stealing arguments should have been handled in a more balanced way, too.
Michael, Thanks for this, and for reading. Do you not agree that the origin of the virus is unclear at this point? What you say is true, but it’s also true that there are possibilities on the other side— a lab that might have been capable, that we know was engaged in research that could have gone wrong and a government that we know was less than forthcoming to put it very mildly. That makes this quite unlike the election fraud arguments, which have been affirmatively disproved.
The fundraising structure, and relation of the "head" to member stations, is a similar problem with PBS. That said, most of the editorial material, in both, is produced by member stations, not the top. Imagine if, say, KABC produced ABC's top sitcom. In other words, the structural issues are far bigger than Dick presents, and with that, member stations ain't surrendering the power of the purse.
I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion that NPR should agree to sever direct funding from the federal government. But I think that in general there should be more public funding for journalism, not less. The key is to structure the mechanisms for public support so that it is free from partisan manipulation. There are several possibilities here, sme of which are already been tried at the state level. We should argue out the pros and cons and encourage experimentation to get to the combiunation of policies that would best support the quality of journalism our democracy needs.
There is an important complication that you are overlooking in your discussion of NPR's financial model: NPR is far more dependent on CPB funding than you suggest. To make sure I had the numbers right, I quickly grabbed a copy of NPR's financials and saw that in 2022, $93.3 million, almost a third of NPR's $316 million in revenue, came in through "Core and other programming fees" (page 13 of the 2022 NPR Annual Report). That revenue line is largely money that NPR affiliates pay to the network for programming. And almost all of those fees are pass-through funds provided by CPB to the stations in grants that must be used for national programming. So, yes, NPR itself gets very little money directly from CPB. However, NPR is heavily dependent on the federal money that flows indirectly through "the system." This indirect payment system developed in, I think, it was the early 1980s, after NPR, under Frank Mankiewicz, ran a substantial deficit, and the stations had to join in a collective bailout. Sending national program money first to the stations, who then send most or all of it back to NPR was a way for stations to have a stronger role in controlling the NPR pocketbook, and it created a marketplace of national programming which gave rise to American Public Radio and later PRX.
Thanks, Mark. I understand that, and it's clear from the page to which I linked. But politically, I think it's the direct federal aid that's a potential hot button. And, as I said, I do think a new overall deal with the stations should give them some greater flexibility on local decisions about whether to carry national programming.
Well said, as always.
Great ideas!
Excellent suggestions.
Brilliant idea.
What a great idea! It seems NPR's government revenues are a modest enough percentage of its needed long-term budget (especially as it continues emphasizing podcasts and streaming) that freeing itself from government money would be a game-changing win. I'd carry that idea forward to what I consider well-intentioned but often misguided attempts to pass laws like New York State's to have government subsidize local media. (See Richard's story on the unintended consequences of New York State's law.)
As a retired NPR affiliate manager, I submit a couple of clarifications:
1. An NPR affiliate can select and air programming from any provider. Most choose not to because (with a few notable exceptions) their listeners want either NPR or local programming. NPR also negotiates with stations to keep NPR programming on their airwaves when budgets are tight.
2. Threatening to lock me in a room or face a loss of funding from national funders would have no effect since stations of my size were never invited into those rooms in the first place. Affiliates with good, local support have it because they are already producing good, local programming. No need for the locked room.
Though beside the point, you and Berlin err about the supposed lack of balance in origin of the Covid virus coverage by much of the media. The science media’s skepticism about a lab produced novel virus able to spread human to human and also wreak havoc was justified. Why? First, there was no evidence ever produced showing the Wuhan lab had accomplished such a feat, or knew how, despite its research fiddling around with bat derived coronavirus samples. Second, since every human virus has had its origin in animals, why should this one not follow this rule? Especially so since other somewhat related SARS viruses that have spread to humans in recent years have had their origin in animals. Wuhan’s wet market contains all the elements needed for transmitting a coronavirus to workers or customers, especially since so many early cases were tracked back to folks who had been infected the market. Attacking the historically careful and extremely skilled NPR science team with an argument that it wasn’t balanced is akin to reporting that Trump’s election stealing arguments should have been handled in a more balanced way, too.
Michael, Thanks for this, and for reading. Do you not agree that the origin of the virus is unclear at this point? What you say is true, but it’s also true that there are possibilities on the other side— a lab that might have been capable, that we know was engaged in research that could have gone wrong and a government that we know was less than forthcoming to put it very mildly. That makes this quite unlike the election fraud arguments, which have been affirmatively disproved.
Oh, I think the origin is definitely unclear, and your old folks at Pro Publica did some good reporting on that last year.
The fundraising structure, and relation of the "head" to member stations, is a similar problem with PBS. That said, most of the editorial material, in both, is produced by member stations, not the top. Imagine if, say, KABC produced ABC's top sitcom. In other words, the structural issues are far bigger than Dick presents, and with that, member stations ain't surrendering the power of the purse.
I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion that NPR should agree to sever direct funding from the federal government. But I think that in general there should be more public funding for journalism, not less. The key is to structure the mechanisms for public support so that it is free from partisan manipulation. There are several possibilities here, sme of which are already been tried at the state level. We should argue out the pros and cons and encourage experimentation to get to the combiunation of policies that would best support the quality of journalism our democracy needs.
There is an important complication that you are overlooking in your discussion of NPR's financial model: NPR is far more dependent on CPB funding than you suggest. To make sure I had the numbers right, I quickly grabbed a copy of NPR's financials and saw that in 2022, $93.3 million, almost a third of NPR's $316 million in revenue, came in through "Core and other programming fees" (page 13 of the 2022 NPR Annual Report). That revenue line is largely money that NPR affiliates pay to the network for programming. And almost all of those fees are pass-through funds provided by CPB to the stations in grants that must be used for national programming. So, yes, NPR itself gets very little money directly from CPB. However, NPR is heavily dependent on the federal money that flows indirectly through "the system." This indirect payment system developed in, I think, it was the early 1980s, after NPR, under Frank Mankiewicz, ran a substantial deficit, and the stations had to join in a collective bailout. Sending national program money first to the stations, who then send most or all of it back to NPR was a way for stations to have a stronger role in controlling the NPR pocketbook, and it created a marketplace of national programming which gave rise to American Public Radio and later PRX.
Thanks, Mark. I understand that, and it's clear from the page to which I linked. But politically, I think it's the direct federal aid that's a potential hot button. And, as I said, I do think a new overall deal with the stations should give them some greater flexibility on local decisions about whether to carry national programming.