• 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

NPR To Assist Station Funding

If NPR's primary source of support is to come from large businesses and philanthropic organizations, then the network will be forced to take a pass on reporting on possible misdeeds by these organizations, their officers, and/or their shareholders.

I referenced that in another post. There's no connection between funding and news gathering. Because their funding is so diversified, they can afford to take a pass on the funding rather than ignore an important story.

Many assume that business leaders will do the "right thing" ethically when push comes to shove but history tends to paint a bleaker picture.

In this case, the journalists at NPR are more focused on reporting the news than appeasing their corporate sponsors. The emphasis on listener support is what gives them that power.
 
If NPR's primary source of support is to come from large businesses and philanthropic organizations, then the network will be forced to take a pass on reporting on possible misdeeds by these organizations, their officers, and/or their shareholders. While government money for the CPB and public stations was *not* contingent on how positively government actions were reported (something Mr. Trump *definitely* does not like), any businesses giving NPR and/or its stations large amounts of money will demand in return that the network *not* report stories that reflect poorly on the financial giver.
There's a firewall between fundraising/donors and reporting at NPR and member stations.
 
I will make one other point unrelated to what you've said but what has been discussed elsewhere in this and other threads on the subject. If NPR's primary source of support is to come from large businesses and philanthropic organizations, then the network will be forced to take a pass on reporting on possible misdeeds by these organizations, their officers, and/or their shareholders. While government money for the CPB and public stations was *not* contingent on how positively government actions were reported (something Mr. Trump *definitely* does not like), any businesses giving NPR and/or its stations large amounts of money will demand in return that the network *not* report stories that reflect poorly on the financial giver.

Ive seen NPR member stations report on their own misgivings/misdeeds or the misgivings of their licensees/schools

When stuff like that happens, a reporter or editor will do up the story and then pass it on to a colleague at another station for editing and then its aired/published online without management seeing it ahead of time.

News is editorally independent of management..... thats why I don't do "hard news" locally most of the time and why i dont contribute to the AKPM statewide news network.. a policy to keep managers away from funding so no one can ask for favors or make donations contingent on favors.

NPR and the like have done stories on corporations or organizations that are supporters.

Businesses can demand such, but they wont get it.. and in fact, will be clearly and categorically turned down and their donation not accepted.

The one thing NPR does have and our member stations, is ethics and policies to prevent shenanigism with regards to news
 
Ive seen NPR member stations report on their own misgivings/misdeeds or the misgivings of their licensees/schools

A great example of this is CapRadio's reporting of the scandal involving its former GM.

But NPR's reporting on its own travails has been completely factual and hasn't engaged in anything other than straight reporting. All of their stories have included a disclaimer.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Correspondents Scott Neuman and Frank Langfitt with contributions by NPR Correspondent David Folkenflik. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
 
As a finamcial supporter of my local NPR outlet, this both saddens and worries me; for while both conservatives and liberals berate the wrongs that government does, few, especially on the right, are willing to acknowledge that large businesses also often engage in practices that are ethically questionable if not outright breaking current city, state, and Federal legal codes. Many assume that business leaders will do the "right thing" ethically when push comes to shove but history tends to paint a bleaker picture.
Not all business leaders are conservative nor are they liberal. There is a mix.

That said, there will be wrong-doers in every type of organization. So to think that the wrong-doing businessmen are all conservative is too simplistic.

If you want systemic organizational malfeasance, then look at governments such as Venezuela and Cuba. Any group that becomes too entrenched in power tends to breed either incompetence or corruption. And that is one of the reasons why I think removing ownership caps on radio is not a good idea.
 
When I was working with a news organization, the way we handled any possible conflicts between advertisers and news was we'd suspend that sponsor's advertising for a period. The one example that comes to mind is airline advertising while covering a plane crash. The minute the story gets reported, the sales people were informed, and all airline advertising was suspended. We certainly wouldn't ignore a plane crash because of a sponsor.
 
When I was working with a news organization, the way we handled any possible conflicts between advertisers and news was we'd suspend that sponsor's advertising for a period. The one example that comes to mind is airline advertising while covering a plane crash. The minute the story gets reported, the sales people were informed, and all airline advertising was suspended. We certainly wouldn't ignore a plane crash because of a sponsor.

When i worked at another small town public station in alaska, there was a small effort to recall the school board led by our news directors wife.

we had a meeting to discuss how we cover in while not playing favorites and be impartial.

I dont remember the outcome though
 
At one AM/FM combo I worked for, an advertiser had an issue with one of our news stories. We responded with: you can have all the issues you want with our news but you shall have zero influence over our coverage. You may, however, purchase commercials to tell your story subject to our approval. Everywhere I worked that has been the case. In fact we had a mobile home dealer complaining (during the warning) because we advised people to leave mobile homes during a tornado warning. We told the mobile home dealer to get off the phone so we could get updates. They cancelled and said they wouldn't be back on until they apologized. We never did.
 
Last weekend, NPR's CEO Katherine Maher took part in a journalism conference hosted by NPR member station KUT in Austin TX. It may surprise people to know that KUT is the #1 station in Austin, with a 10 share! So people in Austin love public radio. During the conference, Maher pledged that NPR would dedicate itself to collaborating more with its member stations in reporting the news:


During the conversation, Hiott and Maher agreed that closer collaboration between NPR and local outlets could strengthen the entire public media ecosystem, and that the funding cuts have made public media ever more dependent on support from donors. Noting the $113 million in donations NPR received in April, Maher said the money will be used to improve that collaboration “on storytelling, on editorial planning, on reportage for big national stories… but nothing makes up for the loss of a half billion dollars a year in federal funding.”
 


Back
Top Bottom