NPR CEO Search Begins anew

[PTBoardOp94]

For the first time in a while, NPR's CEO wasn't forced out -- at least, that wasn't the impression that was given.

Gary Knell will leave in the fall to become CEO of the National Geographic Society.

Knell sent this statement to NPR staff today: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/08/19/npr-ceo-knell

 

[FredLeonard]

Puff-ball reporting of this on ATC. I wonder what the real story is.

Maybe NPR should be working with temp agencies.

This does not change NPR's real - and chronic problem - the station reps on NPR's board. As long as NPR is in thrall to local station fund-raiser (money-grubbers), it will still have a revolving door. NPR needs to get free of the stations.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR needs to get free of the stations.

Interesting. So they run a network without any radio stations? Seems a waste of time to me.

What's the alternative to station GMs on the Board? If not them, you get money-grubbers from other non-profits or pro bono reps from major money grubbing corporations. It's all about money in broadcasting. I've worked both public and commercial, and everybody's asking for money. Even the government wants money.

 

[FredLeonard]

As pointed out in one NPR story on this, so-called "member stations" are both NPR's customers and it's bosses. Keep them as customers, lose them as bosses. The A-Reps keep meddling in aspects of NPR operations, personnel and policies that should be none of a customer's business. This is why the president's office has a revolving door. It's no way to run a network.

NPR's primary competitors are owned and operated by stations. Minnesota Public Radio owns APM. WGBH owns PRI. That works. But NPR is run by committee, as once said, the only form of known life with six bellies (in NPR's case, more like 24 bellies) and no brain.

When the Carnegie Commission made their report back in the 60s, they decided that local stations should run the network. Hippie love-in, Kumbaya democracy at its worst. It's not used by commercial broadcasters. It's not used by any public broadcasters elsewhere, not the BBC, not the CBC ,,,, none. It has caused nothing but problems for NPR.

Once again, Big A in his eagerness to take shots at other people's posts (while never offering anything original of his own) twists things.

 

[TheBigA]

As pointed out in one NPR story on this, so-called "member stations" are both NPR's customers and it's bosses. Keep them as customers, lose them as bosses.

QUOTE]

The money has to come from somewhere. Federal funds are dwindling, and the stations don't want NPR to compete with them for listener money. NPR gets the bulk of its money from the stations, and in return gives them representation in how that money is spent. Don't like their expensive new headquarters? The stations who paid for it don't seem to mind.

In comparison, when a profit making company takes a loan from a bank or accepts money from an investment company, it gives them seats on their Board. That's the kind of role the stations have at NPR. Their input is balanced with a number of non-station representatives from the usual places. You gotta keep the people who foot the bills happy with what they're getting. The station reps are the one connection NPR has with its listeners. Car companies put the local dealers in charge of that relationship. NPR has its stations.

In my previous post, I asked what alternative you would suggest. I'm still waiting. It should be obvious that I don't have the problem with the NPR system that you have. That's why I'm not offering alternatives. I believe it helps to involve the people who provide the bulk of your funding. Apparently you don't. I don't see how replacing station reps with more outside reps will improve anything. Perhaps you can explain how they would. At least the station people know broadcasting. Some insurance company VP or exec from the Red Cross won't.

 

[FredLeonard]

I question your assertion that station people know broadcasting. Maybe some do. Others are professional, and politically well-connected fund raisers.

There is an inherent conflict of interest between stations and NPR News. Stations are interested in fund-raising and placating donors, and in protecting the rusty-towers status quo against inevitable new technology. NPR is interesting in producing content and reaching listeners. And the A-Reps with their short-sighted and parochial interests keep getting in the way and forcing out senior managers.

As customers, stations can judge the quality and pricing of NPR's content-products. They should not be micromanaging NPR operations.

Local stations are in denial about the essential fact that listeners listen to NPR. Stations have almost no listener loyalty or brand equity.

Most outrageous are stations which vote on NPR board member and even serve on the board which carry almost no NPR programming. Roger LeMay is from WXPN. They produce one "world music" show for NPR distribution. They don't carry NPR programming otherwise. They should not be voting on NPR policies, in which they have no stake, and certainly the station should not have a seat on the board.

You want an alternative: An employee-owned corporation should take over NPR.

 

[TheBigA]

As customers, stations can judge the quality and pricing of NPR's content-products. They should not be micromanaging NPR operations.

Do you have examples of the NPR Board "micromanaging NPR operations?" Typically they meet a few times a year. Not many opportunities for micromanaging. Certainly if a single Board member hears something in an NPR show that he or she doesn't like, there'll be a quick phone call to the CEO. But that one Board member doesn't have the power to enact policy without calling a full meeting.

I question your assertion that stations have almost no listener loyalty or brand equity. I think it depends on the station. A few that come to mind are WGBH and KQED. Certainly there are stations that would be non-entities without NPR. But there are lots of others who are very successful without it. You mention WXPN, and NPR benefits from having that kind of station at the table. One station GM isn't going to completely change the direction of the company, but they'll bring a perspective that could be helpful, depending on the issue.

The problem with changing the ownership structure is it would require an amendment to the Public Broadcasting Act. That's what was done in 1983 when the original structure was changed. An employee-owned corporation would make the company even more insular than it is now. I really think they benefit from having viewpoints from people outside the company and outside of Washington. It's the insular NPR-think mentality that is potentially a bigger problem than anything coming from the Board or stations.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I question your assertion that station people know broadcasting. Maybe some do. Others are professional, and politically well-connected fund raisers.

There is an inherent conflict of interest between stations and NPR News. Stations are interested in fund-raising and placating donors, and in protecting the rusty-towers status quo against inevitable new technology. NPR is interesting in producing content and reaching listeners.

We live in a country that attempts to practice a concept known as "self government". And that system has come up with a mechanism that gives us Public Radio,

..... and to operate public radio, that "self government" system has give the entirety of public radio (local stations + the network apparatus) a similar mechanism. "You folks gather over there in the corner of the room and figure out how you are going to share authority, share funding, share some smarts. Let us know when you need further instructions."

I'm not sure what you are arguing FOR, Fred. Self governance is wonderful, but there are days when it gets messy as hell! You have tossed out a couple of specific examples that irk you.... but they look like the system at work to me.

 

[FredLeonard]

BigA: I agree that NPR can be insular. As you point out, the structure of public radio has been changed before, so it can be changed again. The current structure makes NPR the default option. I say separate NPR from the member stations and make it one option among three (or more). If NPR's insularity affects content, stations can shop elsewhere.

An inherent flaw in the current structure is one station, one vote. Stations which don't carry the NPR schedule get an equal voice (and even board membership). Stations should get one vote for every dollar (or hundred dollars or thousand dollars) they spent the previous year on NPR programming. Stations that take Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Fresh Air, Here & Now and some others get more votes. All Classical, jazz or alternative stations get less. Leading stations in key markets like WAMU, WHYY, WNYC, WBEZ and WBUR also get more votes.

The other big flaw in the system is the station boards select their own memberships. This isn't "self-government." People who donate (not corporate sponsors) should select station boards. Station boards are even more insular than NPR.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA: I agree that NPR can be insular. As you point out, the structure of public radio has been changed before, so it can be changed again.

One big difference is the current Congress has a group that is hell-bent on defunding the organization. That was not the case in 1983. Changing the structure means inviting the wolves into the henhouse. I don't see how that is a positive idea.

But I asked for examples of the board's micromanaging, and you didn't respond. I don't see any "conflict of interest" that you talk about. NPR has a thriving digital presence, despite your view that stations only care about rusty towers. It really doesn't matter how many votes a station gets or how many programs they carry. The way Boards work is by consensus, not dictatorship. Shift the power to the bigger stations, and you end up with tyranny of major markets. That's a different kind of problem. But a broad mix of Board members, representing large and small markets, big and small contributors means you have a healthy conversation about the institution, and that's what a Board of Directors is about.

 

[FredLeonard]

Micromanaging: Juan Williams. Acorn. Kerfuffles happen. If they happen anywhere close to local station pledge periods (and there's no time not close to local station pledge periods), local managers get their shots in knots and start pressuring NPR management to fire somebody.

Most of the audience listens to large market stations, especially better-rated news-talk stations. Those stations provide most of NPR's listeners and most of its revenue. Not small market stations. Not music format stations. How is it "representative" to deprive stations that are the backbone of NPR of a correspondingly significant voice in its operations? What's tyranny is to let weak sticks in the boonies dominate.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

The other big flaw in the system is the station boards select their own memberships. This isn't "self-government." People who donate (not corporate sponsors) should select station boards. Station boards are even more insular than NPR.

This sounds vaguely like a public broadcaster with another major management problem: Pacifica.

 

[TheBigA]

Micromanaging: Juan Williams. Acorn. Kerfuffles happen.

Show me how the Board was involved in any of those things. Proof. Not bluster.

In the US Senate, every state has the same voice, regardless of wealth or population. The Senate seems to be running smoother than the lower house.

 

[FredLeonard]

So, you are saying local stations did not start phoning - pressuring - NPR management. Where's your proof? Even NPR reported stations were upset and worried about their local fund-raising campaigns.

And the Senate was a compromise, and obviously a bad one. Originally, the role of the senate was to block any foolishness dreamt up by "the mob" represented in the house. One Senators were elected, there was no reason to maintain a two house legislature.

 

[TheBigA]

So, you are saying local stations did not start phoning - pressuring - NPR management. Where's your proof? Even NPR reported stations were upset and worried about their local fund-raising campaigns.
QUOTE]

The Board was not involved in firing Juan. Neither were stations. The VP firing was done by management. Was management pressured by stations? Maybe, but that would happen regardless if stations are on the Board. They carry the shows, and they have a right to have a say in what goes on the air. The only way to eliminate station pressure from the equation is not have them air it. But if they air it, they have a say. Period. NBC affiliates pressured the network in firing Conan O'Brien. So it happens. Commercial TV networks have affiliate advisory boards, who meet annually to discuss programming, and so it's not unusual to expect the same thing with NPR.

 

[FredLeonard]

Well, you raise a valid point. The only way to eliminate station pressure is to completely divorce NPR from the so-called "member stations." Too bad when they set up public radio, they didn't follow the European model: Assign NPR one or more specific frequencies across the country and by-pass local stations completely. IMHO: Local stations just get in the way. Begathons. Infomercials passed off as local news puff pieces. Network shows by-passed for inferior local shows. Still not too late. Give NPR repeaters and divorce NPR from the local money grubbers completely.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I suspect you are overlooking what this county looked like when radio was established. By the time NPR was created, what this country looked like had begun to change but was still nothing like today.

Based on reading your posts, I have to guess you are an Eastern Seaboard kind of guy.

When our nation decided how we would slice-and-dice this new fad called radio broadcasting, the vast majority of our people lived in places like... or 20 to 30 miles from: McAlester, OK and Fargo, ND and Flagstaff, AZ and Cairo, IL and Vidalia, GA.

The service needs were different. The social values were all over the map. The dreams of the people were inconceivable to us today. The BBC was set up to serve a tidy, settled-down little piece of geography completely surrounded by ocean water. The U.S. on the other hand was rural nation. When I was three years old my father bought his first farm. It was virgin Texas land that had never, never ever been tilled by human-kind. What he wanted rolling out of his radio speaker had little or nothing in common to what some guy working in a Jewish Deli in Manhattan expected from his radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Too bad when they set up public radio, they didn't follow the European model: Assign NPR one or more specific frequencies across the country and by-pass local stations completely.

NPR and the US public broadcasting system were created by federal law, and as a result, they are barred from owning any US frequencies. That applies to TV as well as radio. Even though NPR is an independent company, and employees don't work for the government, and they only receive a small amount of federal funding, they were created by Congress. No way to change that at this point. However, state-owned competitors, like Minnesota Public Broadcasting, are free to enter the national syndication business. It's a quirk in FCC law, designed to keep radio frequencies out of the hands of the federal government.

 

[FredLeonard]

Laws have been changed before and can be changed again. Never say never. VOA can now distribute content domestically and they are under direct government control.

 

[TheBigA]

But VOA can't own a US radio station. Given the amount of competition for frequencies, I can't imagine any circumstance, including federal mandate, that the FCC will be granting free licenses to NPR. Especially given the current acrimony among a handful of Republicans. It simply won't happen. And NPR doesn't have the money to buy stations. Nor do they have the budget to staff and run them. You're asking for federal law to change, and for a company's bi-laws to change. Sure it can happen, but the world could explode too. I just see no reason or motivation right now for any of those changes to happen. Other than you, no one is talking about it, and there are far bigger fish to fry in the media world today. Sure it's much more efficient to have everyone own their own stations. But what's so hard about people learning how to work and live together? Have we become Yugoslavia?