Et tu Brute? Boston Globe says NPR should stand on its own financially

[MattParker]

This reminds of when Walter Cronkite denounced the Viet Nam war and LBJ said if he'd lost Uncle Walter, he'd "lost America." The Boston Globe (owned by the New York Times Company) in an editorial calls for continued funding for the arts and for PBS cultural and documentary programs but says NPR should pay its own way without help from the government.

Democrats need to make hard decisions about which programs to fight for and which to give up. In the cultural realm, this means distinguishing critical arts initiatives that require public funding from equally valuable ones, such as National Public Radio, that can survive — and may even thrive — on their own...
READ MORE

The Globe editorial adds that NPR should help small public radio stations in small communities survive by cutting their own program fees, often criticized as excessive.

The editorial adds that for a news service, which is NPR's primary and most visible role, there is a big advantage to being free of government support: "The best guarantee of a fearless media is its own income stream."

The Globe says congress is looking at cuts in a lot of areas, some of which even NPR's biggest supports would have a hard time saying are not more important than keeping public radio from facing a 10 per cent (give or take) revenue shortfall.

IMHO: The attempt by public radio management selfishly to hold onto CPB welfare by spinning the issue in strictly political terms does not seem to be working if even a bastion of the "elite liberal media" is not going along.

 

[aaronread]

I freely admit that I work in public radio, but dude - this is so not a LBJ/"Lost America" moment.

This is the Boston Globe pulling a cheap shot at WBUR because WBUR is eating the Globe's lunch when it comes to being a local news source for the Boston area. And worse still, WBUR's website has been steadily getting more and more competitive with the Globe's "boston.com" site. I'm not surprised the Globe is bitter about WBUR getting what they deem an "unfair advantage"...conveniently forgetting that newspapers get subsidized postal rates for delivery.

Granted, I don't live in Boston anymore so I can't confirm this, but I've heard that WBUR has pulled some cheap shots during their fundraising, too. Saying stuff along the lines of "in a time when newspapers are facing massive cutbacks, WBUR is a news source you can rely on". That sort of thing.

Anyways, don't read too much into this: the Globe is no longer a national paper at all, if it ever was. It's strictly a regional/local paper and this is a local fight between two local media outlets.

 

[TheBigA]

IMHO: The attempt by public radio management selfishly to hold onto CPB welfare by spinning the issue in strictly political terms does not seem to be working if even a bastion of the "elite liberal media" is not going along.

Sure and they replaced Ted Kennedy with a conservative Republican. Things change.

It's not me saying it, it's not anyone at NPR saying it, it's not anyone at any of the stations saying it. Simply read the opinion of the Congressman who has pushed for this cut, and the opinions of his fellow freshmen Congressmen who agreed. It's ALL about politics, pure and simple. If it was just about cutting waste, they'd let the American people see all the programs they ARE approving. The funny part is that this hurts NPR the least. The real effects will be felt out at the stations. Lots of local broadcasters will lose jobs as a result of these cuts. They are constituents and voters. The fat cats stay fat, and the poor get poorer, which is how Republicans like it.

 

[johnbasalla]

Scott Brown is a Republican for sure, but I think he's more of a moderate then a conservative.

 

[MattParker]

This is the Boston Globe pulling a cheap shot at WBUR because WBUR is eating the Globe's lunch when it comes to being a local news source for the Boston area. And worse still, WBUR's website has been steadily getting more and more competitive with the Globe's "boston.com" site. I'm not surprised the Globe is bitter about WBUR getting what they deem an "unfair advantage"...conveniently forgetting that newspapers get subsidized postal rates for delivery.

Granted, I don't live in Boston anymore so I can't confirm this, but I've heard that WBUR has pulled some cheap shots during their fundraising, too. Saying stuff along the lines of "in a time when newspapers are facing massive cutbacks, WBUR is a news source you can rely on". That sort of thing.

Anyways, don't read too much into this: the Globe is no longer a national paper at all, if it ever was. It's strictly a regional/local paper and this is a local fight between two local media outlets.

And you are assuming that people on class newspaper are as petty as those in radio. Newspaper people have little regard for so-called radio "journalists," do not deem radio news a competitor and pretty much ignore it.

"WBUR is eating the Globe's lunch when it comes to being a local news source for the Boston area???" In your dreams. Radio is not and never has been a local news source. Newspapers are still the only source for news gathering and enterprise reporting. Newspaper stories go on the AP wire and radio stations grab them, maybe get sound bites, more likely do man on the street interviews or do live shots from some place nothing is happening at the moment - and call it "reporting." Radio doesn't have news that isn't handed to them in press releases, staged events and meetings, on the wire or taken from newspapers. And when can 40 seconds of barely re-written wire copy (minus sound bite) replace a real newspaper story? The only time radio news had any class and credibility is when it hired former newspapermen, not guys who really wanted to be DJs.

The Globe never aspired to be a "national newspaper." It is the paper of record for New England. If public radio loses the Globe, they lose New England or at least their core constituency in one of their core territories.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

"WBUR is eating the Globe's lunch when it comes to being a local news source for the Boston area???" In your dreams. Radio is not and never has been a local news source. Newspapers are still the only source for news gathering and enterprise reporting. Newspaper stories go on the AP wire and radio stations grab them, maybe get sound bites, more likely do man on the street interviews or do live shots from some place nothing is happening at the moment - and call it "reporting." Radio doesn't have news that isn't handed to them in press releases, staged events and meetings, on the wire or taken from newspapers.

Someone help me out here. Matt has described radio news as we knew it in the 1960s. What is happening today? What is happening at a WBUR? I can't remember the last time I was in a radio station that an AP or UPI wire service printing out.

 

[MattParker]

"WBUR is eating the Globe's lunch when it comes to being a local news source for the Boston area???" In your dreams. Radio is not and never has been a local news source. Newspapers are still the only source for news gathering and enterprise reporting. Newspaper stories go on the AP wire and radio stations grab them, maybe get sound bites, more likely do man on the street interviews or do live shots from some place nothing is happening at the moment - and call it "reporting." Radio doesn't have news that isn't handed to them in press releases, staged events and meetings, on the wire or taken from newspapers.

Someone help me out here. Matt has described radio news as we knew it in the 1960s. What is happening today? What is happening at a WBUR? I can't remember the last time I was in a radio station that an AP or UPI wire service printing out.

UPI is out of business but the AP comes in on computers (people still call it "the wire").

 

[aaronread]

"WBUR is eating the Globe's lunch when it comes to being a local news source for the Boston area???" In your dreams. Radio is not and never has been a local news source. Newspapers are still the only source for news gathering and enterprise reporting.

Someone help me out here. Matt has described radio news as we knew it in the 1960s. What is happening today? What is happening at a WBUR?

WBUR has been hiring reporters (last I heard they had eight or nine FT reporters, plus some PT folks...which is a lot for a radio station) whereas the Globe keeps laying them off. Take a look at www.wbur.org and tell me how many stories on their front page are not from their own news staff? Times have changed, my friend. WBUR has seen a unique opportunity to take over as the primary source for news in the Greater Boston area and they are pursuing it with gusto. This is especially true as both the Globe and Herald have been hemorrhaging readers of the paper, but both are gaining web readers. It's hard for any radio signal to directly compete with a newspaper's print edition...but everyone's equal on the web, and the web is where it's at.

The Globe never aspired to be a "national newspaper." It is the paper of record for New England. If public radio loses the Globe, they lose New England or at least their core constituency in one of their core territories.

Yeah, I said that wrong...apologies. I meant that the Globe no longer is a strong source of national news...not that it was distributed nationally. Used to be you could read the Globe and have a decent handle on everything going on in the USA. Not anymore, you've gotta read at least the NY Times and arguably the Washington Post to get that. However, the Globe is still a good paper for regional/local news coverage.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

WBUR has been hiring reporters (last I heard they had eight or nine FT reporters, plus some PT folks...which is a lot for a radio station) whereas the Globe keeps laying them off.

In Atlanta, WABE has also been "bulking up" it's reporting staff. And the 'interest and quality' of the on-air content is reflecting that.

 

[MattParker]

I can't think of any newspaper that is as good as it was. Then again, NPR is not what it was either.

The Boston Globe currently lists 134 writers on its website. That does not include stringers, rewrite people, proof readers, copy editors and editors.

Quantity of warm bodies counts less than quality. Real reporters work for newspapers, not radio stations. What's especially telling is the way radio news jockeys make a point of calling themselves (and each other) "journalists." It's my observation that those who call themselves "journalists" really aren't.

 

[TheBigA]

Real reporters work for newspapers, not radio stations.

That's a very narrow view of what a real reporter is. I'd suggest, based on my world view of it, is that real reporters work for themselves. That way they can determine how their work is used and reused (books, movies, etc). I've worked with a lot of real reporters. There are quite a few at newspapers and news magazines. There are quite a few in TV, at networks, at NPR, and similar companies. Not so many at radio stations because the reporting tends to be rather mundane. But as I said I know a lot of serious journalists who don't strictly speaking work for anyone. They're independent journalists, and they pride themselves on that fact. They aren't beholden to some corporate ideology or stucture. They just follow stories that interest them, and sell them to whoever buys.

 

[MattParker]

Real reporters work for newspapers, not radio stations.

That's a very narrow view of what a real reporter is. I'd suggest, based on my world view of it, is that real reporters work for themselves. That way they can determine how their work is used and reused (books, movies, etc). I've worked with a lot of real reporters. There are quite a few at newspapers and news magazines. There are quite a few in TV, at networks, at NPR, and similar companies. Not so many at radio stations because the reporting tends to be rather mundane. But as I said I know a lot of serious journalists who don't strictly speaking work for anyone. They're independent journalists, and they pride themselves on that fact. They aren't beholden to some corporate ideology or stucture. They just follow stories that interest them, and sell them to whoever buys.

There is something to what you say. In newspaper's Golden Age, a reporter supposedly "worked with his hat on." Reporters changed jobs a lot (sometimes by choice, sometimes not) and often left suddenly. Newsroom employment was even less stable than, well, radio. So, in a way, reporters then weren't really tied to a job and did work for themselves.

The differences between newspaper and radio people are pretty well reflected in the characters of Lou Grant and Les Nessman.

Netflix has both The Front Page and His Girl Friday for instant viewing on demand. They have the Billy Wilder remake of The Front Page. Seasons one through three of Lou Grant are available online.

 

[TheBigA]

The differences between newspaper and radio people are pretty well reflected in the characters of Lou Grant and Les Nessman.

Most of the reporters I worked with at NPR were former newspaper folks. We often had to teach them radio writing and recording techniques. Les Nessman was a local station reporter. Tom Gjelton never worked for a local station. He is a serious journalist on par with any newspaper reporter I've ever known. Part of the reason why NPR hired newspaper people was the fact that station reporters are like Les Nessman. But it made my job tough because newspaper writing doesn't always translate to radio. Same thing with the network reporters at CBS or CNN. You do have a few former models who worked in local TV. But the majority of the reporters I worked with on Capitol Hill were as serious about their facts as anyone at The Post or The Times. We all hung out together, and we all shared ideas and techniques. Even if you did work at a local radio station, a few months in the bowels of the White House will wring out any Silver Sows you may have won. NPR had a great training program at one time designed to show station reporters techniques used at the network. I know a lot of people at WBUR went through that program.

 

[MattParker]

The differences between newspaper and radio people are pretty well reflected in the characters of Lou Grant and Les Nessman.

Most of the reporters I worked with at NPR were former newspaper folks. We often had to teach them radio writing and recording techniques. Les Nessman was a local station reporter. Tom Gjelton never worked for a local station. He is a serious journalist on par with any newspaper reporter I've ever known. Part of the reason why NPR hired newspaper people was the fact that station reporters are like Les Nessman. But it made my job tough because newspaper writing doesn't always translate to radio. Same thing with the network reporters at CBS or CNN. You do have a few former models who worked in local TV. But the majority of the reporters I worked with on Capitol Hill were as serious about their facts as anyone at The Post or The Times. We all hung out together, and we all shared ideas and techniques. Even if you did work at a local radio station, a few months in the bowels of the White House will wring out any Silver Sows you may have won. NPR had a great training program at one time designed to show station reporters techniques used at the network. I know a lot of people at WBUR went through that program.

You can teach radio writing and audio production to a newspaper writer. But a training program, even NPR's, is not likely to turn Les Nessman into a reporter. Which is why the better network people still come from newspapers and wire services.

 

[TheBigA]

You can teach radio writing and audio production to a newspaper writer. But a training program, even NPR's, is not likely to turn Les Nessman into a reporter. Which is why the better network people still come from newspapers and wire services.

Kind of unfair to pick on a fictional character to represent all local news people. I found that they feel into two classes: Those who reported from their desk, and those who did field reporting. Less Nessman stayed in the studio. The latter is no different from newspaper work. But if you're a studio jockey, you're not a reporter. A lot of these local newscasters who do breaks during Morning Edition and ATC aren't reporters. Then again, Karl Kassel will tell you that he's not a reporter either. NPR breaks their news department into several classifications. Newscasters do strictly that. Brian Naylor was originally a newscaster who aspired to become a reporter. He's now one of the best. John Hockenberry was originally a newscaster at NPR. But when he was with a station, he was a reporter who covered the Mount St. Helen's volcano. From a wheelchair! The NPR training program wasn't meant to turn Les Nessman into a reporter. But to take a local field reporter and make them better.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You can teach radio writing and audio production to a newspaper writer. But a training program, even NPR's, is not likely to turn Les Nessman into a reporter. Which is why the better network people still come from newspapers and wire services.

I have to jump in here and suggest you are painting with much too broad of a brush.

There is no reason why you cannot take a 38 year old lab chemist from the hospital or a 48 year old woman who worked as a doctors secretary/bookkeeper until he retired and train either one of them to become a radio news person. The key is: do they have a brain, a thought-process that is capable of wrapping itself around the concept of current events.

The problem with Les Nessman was NOT that he only had radio experience.... his problem was I'm not sure he could wrap his brain around the concept that a vending machine only dispenses product if you put the correct amount of money in the slot.

Yes, experience does teach you some techniques on how to string words together more effectively, and experience usually means you "know where all the bodies are buried". You know when the person you are interviewing has know affiliations and a know history of directionality. But if as a news person you leave Boston to take a gig in Denver or Madison, WI, you like the raw beginner, are beginning at zero in knowing the background of the person you are quizzing.

 

[aaronread]

The differences between newspaper and radio people are pretty well reflected in the characters of Lou Grant and Les Nessman.

Ummm...Lou Grant started as the news director at a TV station. And he "worked" at WJM-TV (1970-77) longer than he did at the LA Tribune (1977-82). Apparently real journalists start in broadcast and then slum their way over to newspapers? ;D

FWIW, I have only one employee but he's one of the best newspeople I've ever met, and he's never worked for a newspaper...only in radio. Having worked with newspaper people and radio news people, I agree with GRC that you're painting with way too broad a brush. Yes there are more hardcore news people in newspapers but a lot of that is, as you say, because there's a lot more people working at a newspaper than working at the local news radio station. What matters in news is a quick and sharp mind, intricate knowledge of your region and the people in it, and a high degree of fearlessness to ask tough questions and stick your nose where other people don't want it. Those qualities are not unique to radio or the newspaper.

Part of this is comparing apples to oranges, too. Radio news only to fill 24 hours in a day, and realistically often barely a fifth of that. A newspaper often has to fill 20 to 40 pages with quality content. Plus there may be two or three news outlets in town...and back in the day, virtually every radio station had at least one newsperson. Whereas most towns have been one- or two-paper towns, at most, for decades. Ergo, it's not surprising that newspapers would have a lot more newspeople working for them than any one radio station.

Historically it is true that that dynamic has allowed radio news to be sloppy and lazy, reading the newspaper each morning and re-writing that for their own newscasts. But this is far less true today than it used to be. There's a reason why a lot of top-level newspaper talent has migrated to public radio; it's one of the very few places left with a commitment to real journalism AND the funds to pay for it.

Worth noting: WBUR has been "stealing" away top talent from the Boston Globe for almost a decade now, starting with Tom Ashbrook right after Sept.11th. It's no wonder there's a little bad blood between them.

 

[MattParker]

Ummm...Lou Grant started as the news director at a TV station. And he "worked" at WJM-TV (1970-77) longer than he did at the LA Tribune (1977-82). Apparently real journalists start in broadcast and then slum their way over to newspapers? ;D

Sorry, that is not what the article to which you provided a link says:

He started his career in print journalism as a copy boy, but it is unclear whether this was in Detroit, Minneapolis or San Francisco, as he worked for papers in all three cities. In this period of his life, he met and worked with Charlie Hume (Mason Adams) for the first time at the San Francisco Call-Bulletin.

At some point in his late 30s, he made the transition to television news...

Lou most often made references (on both shows) to his career on The Detroit Free Press, including being written up in the Press section of Time Magazine for a story he broke ("Detroit's Grant: A Nose for News and a Taste for Booze").

And we don't know how long he worked for WJM-TV (only how long Mary worked there). We know when he left; we don't know when he arrived. We also don't know how long he worked for the Trib. We know when he arrived but there is no suggestion in the last episode of "Lou Grant" that he was leaving.

There is an essential difference between the kind of person who goes into newspapers and the kind who goes into radio. Newspaper people tend to be driven to report and to write. Radio people tend to want to be in radio. Exceptions noted. Exception prove the rule. The traditional newspaper mind set is typified by, "If your mother says he loves you, check it out." Radio's is: If your mother says she loves you, get sound.

 

[TheBigA]

Newspaper people tend to be driven to report and to write. Radio people tend to want to be in radio.

Guilty as charged. But radio people never want to be radio news people. They want to be DJs. As one who spent time hiring radio news people, I always made sure I wasn't getting frustrated DJs. They would be bad news folks. And all the people I hired always stayed on the news side. Some left radio news for TV. But they were first and foremost news people, not radio people.

 

[aaronread]

@MattParker: Touche! (tips cap)

There is an essential difference between the kind of person who goes into newspapers and the kind who goes into radio. Newspaper people tend to be driven to report and to write. Radio people tend to want to be in radio

But radio people never want to be radio news people. They want to be DJs.

Honestly I don't know about that. I got bitten by the radio bug and never really wanted to be a DJ. But while I've worked mostly at radio news outlets, I'm not really a reporter...I'm an audio tech guy who happens to be a news junkie. And most of the students I see going into newspapers are more interested in inflicting their opinions on everyone than they are on reporting. Not surprisingly, most students I see going into radio are the same way, just more limited to musical opinions than general ones. :