• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NY Times Article on Challenges Facing NPR

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheBigA said:
Here's an article that quotes an interview with NPR CEO Katherine Maher, in which she addresses the business challenges:

www.insideradio.com

NPR President/CEO Defends Network, Says She’s Focused On Its Future.

NPR President/CEO Katherine Maher is defending the organization following the controversy stirred up by former Business Editor Uri Berliner’s essay that appeared in The Free Press, in which he accused
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article:

Click to expand...
The problem with the hiring of the current CEO is the woman was a Democratic Party activist and a major supporter of the current President.You can't just say to conservative listeners and conservative donors. "Oh don't pay any attention to that.She'll just ignore her politics.And do what's good for the network"I mean, come on, Santa Claus and the easter bunny are not real either.
The problem with The New York Times article is, because of their own progressive bias,They ignore these issues of political bias and just focus on the challenges that n p r has moving forward because of the changing landscape. The political bias IS a factor in their ability to fund raise.
 
TheBigA said:
So what would you do to fix that?
Click to expand...
That ship has sailed. They should have chosen a new CEO who was not known as a political activist affiliated with one political party. Firing her now is not going to happen. Because that would be seen as caving in to the right.
Very dumb move by a so called "Public Radio Network "
 
BruceB said:
That ship has sailed. They should have chosen a new CEO who was not known as a political activist affiliated with one political party. Firing her now is not going to happen. Because that would be seen as caving in to the right.
Very dumb move by a so called "Public Radio Network "
Click to expand...

People are not hired based on their political party. That question doesn't appear on a job application. In fact, it's illegal to hire someone based on their political party. She was hired based on her qualifications. That's how people are hired in this country. Maybe China hires people based on political party. Not the US. As I said earlier in this thread, she is not a journalist, and she was not hired to be a journalist.

The constitution guarantees everyone in this country a right to their opinions. You don't give up that right by becoming CEO of NPR.
 
TheBigA said:
People are not hired based on their political party. That question doesn't appear on a job application. In fact, it's illegal to hire someone based on their political party. She was hired based on her qualifications. That's how people are hired in this country. Maybe China hires people based on political party. Not the US. As I said earlier in this thread, she is not a journalist, and she was not hired to be a journalist.

The constitution guarantees everyone in this country a right to their opinions. You don't give up that right by becoming CEO of NPR.
Click to expand...
According to Uri Berliner, who had been at NPR for 26 years, the Board of Directors at NPR , who hired the CEO, are overwhelmingly Progressive. Do you expect people to believe that her Progressive views (which were well known on social media) played no roll in their choosing her? There are other people who are qualified for that job whose political options are not known.
This was deliberate.
 
BruceB said:
Firing her now is not going to happen. Because that would be seen as caving in to the right.
Click to expand...

If she did something illegal, lied about something, or concealed something about her past during her hiring process, she can be fired. It doesn't matter who points it out. She might also resign if she feels her past will be bad for the company. That's what happened to Vivian Shiller.
BruceB said:
According to Uri Berliner, who had been at NPR for 26 years, the Board of Directors at NPR , who hired the CEO, are overwhelmingly Progressive.
Click to expand...

Once again, what does that have to do with her qualifications? Is there something illegal about that? If so, it should be stated in the hiring guidelines so people know that having progressive opinions will be used against you.
 
TheBigA said:
If she did something illegal, lied about something, or concealed something about her past during her hiring process, she can be fired. It doesn't matter who points it out. She might also resign if she feels her past will be bad for the company. That's what happened to Vivian Shiller.


Once again, what does that have to do with her qualifications? Is there something illegal about that? If so, it should be stated in the hiring guidelines so people know that having progressive opinions will be used against you.
Click to expand...
The whole point of The New York Times article was about the difficulties NPR's facing with fund raising.you do not enhance your chances of fund raising by hiring somebody who is overtly political. You could raise more money by drawing from both sides of the political spectrum. Instead, they hired a person who bragged on social media that she is proud of being called "woke". And embraces DEI by saying there are "too many white men in power".That is not going to get you donations from people on the right of the spectrum.That is what i'm trying to say.
Hiring someone who is overtly political reduces the pool of potential donors.
 
BruceB said:
The whole point of The New York Times article was about the difficulties NPR's facing with fund raising.you do not enhance your chances of fund raising by hiring somebody who is overtly political.
Click to expand...

But the fundraising problem was not caused by her being hired. If there was a direct relationship between her hiring and fundraising, you might have a point. The policies Berliner was complaining about were not made by her. He says that in his article. They were made by her predecessor, who previously worked in the Trump administration.

You really haven't addressed any of the points I've brought up at all: Companies don't use political party as a hiring qualification. Maher is not a journalist, nor is she involved in journalism. NPR's news reporting is not the reason for fundraising shortfalls.
 
If you believe that Berliner article and the Ceo and the play that has gotten on conservative media is not going to cost them donations from Republicans, I don't think you know many conservatives.
 
BruceB said:
If you believe that Berliner article and the Ceo and the play that has gotten on conservative media is not going to cost them donations from Republicans, I don't think you know many conservatives.
Click to expand...

What percentage of conservatives listen to NPR? Ever? That's not a recent thing. And TBH I can't think of anything NPR could do that would change that. That's why I asked you how you would fix it. People who consume conservative media have their own biases, and there's NOTHING that will change it. We see that every day. Anyone who thinks that you can change that view isn't a real conservative.

I challenge you to put the same purity test you have for NPR on any other media.
 
TheBigA said:
What percentage of conservatives listen to NPR? Ever? That's not a recent thing. And TBH I can't think of anything NPR could do that would change that. That's why I asked you how you would fix it. People who consume conservative media have their own biases, and there's NOTHING that will change it. We see that every day. Anyone who thinks that you can change that view isn't a real conservative.

I challenge you to put the same purity test you have for NPR on any other media.
Click to expand...
It's true that ratings are down for conservatives but not donors. The Koch Brothers were among the biggest NPR donors ever! Even now they still get money from Red states. But that will change.
The bottom line is this uproar is not helping
NPR
 
It's actually a pretty good rule of journalism when you come across something like the Berliner screed - ask yourself "am I believing this thing from someone I've never heard of before because it confirms everything I already believe?"

A good journalist approaches it skeptically and applies the kind of fact checking that Inskeep (a VERY good journalist) applied.

That goes double when it's coming from somewhere like Bari Weiss and the Free Press, which was founded in bad faith to run stuff like the Berliner piece, to get clicks and confirm the prior prejudices of a lot of people who were never going to be public radio supporters anyway. The fact that Berliner went there with his piece said a lot.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is back in the 90s NPR did well in Red States. And you are right about pay for use. NPR no longer rates well in Red America
 
BruceB said:
My understanding is back in the 90s NPR did well in Red States. And you are right about pay for use. NPR no longer rates well in Red America
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by 'doing well.' Keep in mind that most red states have very blue cities. That's where the stations are based. But we have a guy who posts here from an NPR station in rural Alaska. He can tell you how his listeners feel about that.
 
BruceB said:
My understanding is back in the 90s NPR did well in Red States. And you are right about pay for use. NPR no longer rates well in Red America
Click to expand...
Here's what you don't get to do on this site: you don't get to invent your own facts.

WOI-FM Ames/Des Moines over the last three books: 3.9, 3.9, 4.0 (and 1.3 up to a 1.8 for their AM)

WBHM Birmingham: 2.9, 2.9, 3.0

KWGS Tulsa: 3.0 to a 3.9

KIOS Omaha: 2.5 to a 3.3

KBSX Boise is a solid #6 in its market.

So what exactly are YOU talking about?
 
TheBigA said:
Keep in mind that most red states have very blue cities. That's where the stations are based. But we have a guy who posts here from rural Alaska. He can tell you how his listeners feel about that.
Click to expand...
I agree, but NPR ratings are down in places like Dallas, Atlanta and others from what they were in the90s early 00s
 
BruceB said:
I agree, but NPR ratings are down in places like Dallas, Atlanta and others from what they were in the90s early 00s
Click to expand...

KERA is the highest rated non-music station in Dallas. So I don't think you're right about that.

The Atlanta station has never been a ratings powerhouse. It's owned by the city Board of Education.

The news audience in Atlanta has always been well served by WSB.

If you go back to the original founding of public broadcasting, it wasn't intended to be highly rated. That was the domain of commercial broadcasting. They do programming to attract ratings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom