Some Scenarios If Congress Cuts Federal Funding For Public Broadcasting

[Mark_Giardina]

If the House of Representatives passes legislation recommended by a Congressional committee to cut 45% of government funding to Public Broadcasting, here are some scenarios that might happen to your local NPR/PBS station. I stress the point might happen because each station’s financial situation is different.

The first thing management will want to do is cut expenses. That could mean eliminating jobs, programming or a reduction in the amount of money a station may contribute to the TIAA-CREF, or other retirement system. If a station is unionized management might want to renegotiate existing contracts. Stations already understaffed may be forced to impose a hiring freeze.

Some affiliates might not be able to afford some NPR programs, like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. NPR executives should consider using some of that Joan Kroc endowment and reduce the cost of some network programs to affiliates as one way for stations to afford to continue airing these shows.

More of an effort will have to be made to secure funding, not just from underwriters, but the general public. That will mean more pledge drives, much to the chagrin of listeners and viewers. One has to wonder if the newspaper editorial writers, and commentators, who are bemoaning cuts in public broadcasting actually contribute to their local NPR/PBS stations?

I have one final suggestion to make. Some public stations are top-heavy with managers who make a great deal of money. Before management considers layoffs it would be only fair that the pink slips are not just handed out to the worker bees. Of course we know that when layoffs do occur some top executives always manage to keep their jobs while those on the bottom of the food chain are the first to go.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[testing]

Local music personnel will be the first to go... then local newspeople. they can run a station totally without live local airstaff if they want to, and there are plenty of entities out there who would love to supply them with content and the ability to do just that.

managers will, of course, stay. and pat themselves on the back for their farsighted ability to cut costs.

ack!





> If the House of Representatives passes legislation
> recommended by a Congressional committee to cut 45% of
> government funding to Public Broadcasting, here are some
> scenarios that might happen to your local NPR/PBS station. I
> stress the point might happen because each station’s
> financial situation is different.
>
> The first thing management will want to do is cut expenses.
> That could mean eliminating jobs, programming or a reduction
> in the amount of money a station may contribute to the
> TIAA-CREF, or other retirement system. If a station is
> unionized management might want to renegotiate existing
> contracts. Stations already understaffed may be forced to
> impose a hiring freeze.
>
> Some affiliates might not be able to afford some NPR
> programs, like Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
> NPR executives should consider using some of that Joan Kroc
> endowment and reduce the cost of some network programs to
> affiliates as one way for stations to afford to continue
> airing these shows.
>
> More of an effort will have to be made to secure funding,
> not just from underwriters, but the general public. That
> will mean more pledge drives, much to the chagrin of
> listeners and viewers. One has to wonder if the newspaper
> editorial writers, and commentators, who are bemoaning cuts
> in public broadcasting actually contribute to their local
> NPR/PBS stations?
>
> I have one final suggestion to make. Some public stations
> are top-heavy with managers who make a great deal of money.
> Before management considers layoffs it would be only fair
> that the pink slips are not just handed out to the worker
> bees. Of course we know that when layoffs do occur some top
> executives always manage to keep their jobs while those on
> the bottom of the food chain are the first to go.
>

 

[StangBuddy]

> If the House of Representatives passes legislation
> recommended by a Congressional committee to cut 45% of
> government funding to Public Broadcasting, here are some
> scenarios that might happen to your local NPR/PBS station. I
> stress the point might happen because each station’s
> financial situation is different.
>
> The first thing management will want to do is cut expenses.
> That could mean eliminating jobs, programming or a reduction
> in the amount of money a station may contribute to the
> TIAA-CREF, or other retirement system. If a station is
> unionized management might want to renegotiate existing
> contracts. Stations already understaffed may be forced to
> impose a hiring freeze.
>
> Some affiliates might not be able to afford some NPR
> programs, like Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
> NPR executives should consider using some of that Joan Kroc
> endowment and reduce the cost of some network programs to
> affiliates as one way for stations to afford to continue
> airing these shows.
>
> More of an effort will have to be made to secure funding,
> not just from underwriters, but the general public. That
> will mean more pledge drives, much to the chagrin of
> listeners and viewers. One has to wonder if the newspaper
> editorial writers, and commentators, who are bemoaning cuts
> in public broadcasting actually contribute to their local
> NPR/PBS stations?
>
> I have one final suggestion to make. Some public stations
> are top-heavy with managers who make a great deal of money.
> Before management considers layoffs it would be only fair
> that the pink slips are not just handed out to the worker
> bees. Of course we know that when layoffs do occur some top
> executives always manage to keep their jobs while those on
> the bottom of the food chain are the first to go.
>
I got a job offer once from PBS and as I told my friends, associates and girlfriend at the time, it was for "McDonalds Money". This was an offer I had to refuse! Just thought I'd note that since the Kroc foundation slipped into this post. And by the way ALL public stations are top heavy and..trigger happy as well. I know a GM who took a job in Upstate (your neighborhood) a few years ago who bragged about millions in reserve and ended up cutting staff while re-locating to new, posh digs.

If you're going to be unabashed greed-head capitalists, like those of us on the commercial side of things are accused of, then embrace it. PBS has developed many great brands within the mandates of the public. Exploit it please. Don't let cable and sattelite pull the rug out from under you.

 

[perenoel6218]

> Local music personnel will be the first to go... then local
> newspeople. they can run a station totally without live
> local airstaff if they want to, and there are plenty of
> entities out there who would love to supply them with
> content and the ability to do just that.
>
> managers will, of course, stay. and pat themselves on the
> back for their farsighted ability to cut costs.
>
> ack!
>
>


JUST A FEW THOUGHTS ON THIS FUNDING CUTBACK...PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE
OF NPR. FIRST, WAS IT NOT NPR THAT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE LOW POWER
FM MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY? ALONG WITH OTHERS OF COURSE. DOES ONE ASSUME
THEY SPENT QUITE A FEW BUCKS DOING THAT? AND SECOND, WAS NOT NPR THE
OTHER PARTY ALONG WITH THE STATE OF OREGON AND AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
THAT FOUGHT IN COURT THE POINT SYSTEM FOR NCE MX GROUPS?
PERHAPS KARMA IS BEING SERVED.
>
>
>
> > If the House of Representatives passes legislation
> > recommended by a Congressional committee to cut 45% of
> > government funding to Public Broadcasting, here are some
> > scenarios that might happen to your local NPR/PBS station.
> I
> > stress the point might happen because each station’s
> > financial situation is different.
> >
> > The first thing management will want to do is cut
> expenses.
> > That could mean eliminating jobs, programming or a
> reduction
> > in the amount of money a station may contribute to the
> > TIAA-CREF, or other retirement system. If a station is
> > unionized management might want to renegotiate existing
> > contracts. Stations already understaffed may be forced to
> > impose a hiring freeze.
> >
> > Some affiliates might not be able to afford some NPR
> > programs, like Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
> > NPR executives should consider using some of that Joan
> Kroc
> > endowment and reduce the cost of some network programs to
> > affiliates as one way for stations to afford to continue
> > airing these shows.
> >
> > More of an effort will have to be made to secure funding,
> > not just from underwriters, but the general public. That
> > will mean more pledge drives, much to the chagrin of
> > listeners and viewers. One has to wonder if the newspaper
> > editorial writers, and commentators, who are bemoaning
> cuts
> > in public broadcasting actually contribute to their local
> > NPR/PBS stations?
> >
> > I have one final suggestion to make. Some public stations
> > are top-heavy with managers who make a great deal of
> money.
> > Before management considers layoffs it would be only fair
> > that the pink slips are not just handed out to the worker
> > bees. Of course we know that when layoffs do occur some
> top
> > executives always manage to keep their jobs while those on
>
> > the bottom of the food chain are the first to go.
> >
>

 

[testing]

> JUST A FEW THOUGHTS ON THIS FUNDING CUTBACK...PARTICULARLY
> IN THE CASE
> OF NPR. FIRST, WAS IT NOT NPR THAT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE
> LOW POWER
> FM MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY? ALONG WITH OTHERS OF COURSE.
> DOES ONE ASSUME
> THEY SPENT QUITE A FEW BUCKS DOING THAT? AND SECOND, WAS
> NOT NPR THE
> OTHER PARTY ALONG WITH THE STATE OF OREGON AND AMERICAN
> FAMILY ASSOCIATION
> THAT FOUGHT IN COURT THE POINT SYSTEM FOR NCE MX GROUPS?
> PERHAPS KARMA IS BEING SERVED.

Dunno about the karma thing, but yeah, you're right, about the LPFM.
my understanding at the time was that it was primarily over some major interference/engineering type issues rather than any inherent hatred of the concept of LPFM, though.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

I think if this coming week (June 20th-24th) does see the Congresional vote to slash federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I think one of the first things that will happen will be a nationwide (meaning every member station will participate in it) emergency pledge-drive for NPR and PBS member stations. It might start within a week of the vote and might run for as long as a month.

Wasn't there a time some years back when NPR found itself in financial "hot water" and ran a nationwide emergency pledge drive to raise funds to "save NPR"??

 

[network]

> I think if this coming week (June 20th-24th) does see the
> Congresional vote to slash federal funding for the
> Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I think one of the
> first things that will happen will be a nationwide (meaning
> every member station will participate in it) emergency
> pledge-drive for NPR and PBS member stations. It might start
> within a week of the vote and might run for as long as a
> month.
>
> Wasn't there a time some years back when NPR found itself in
> financial "hot water" and ran a nationwide emergency pledge
> drive to raise funds to "save NPR"??
>
NPR and PBS do not run "national pledge drives". The local affliates do. The respective networks do provide fundraising versions of their programming.

 

[network]

> If the House of Representatives passes legislation
> recommended by a Congressional committee to cut 45% of
> government funding to Public Broadcasting, here are some
> scenarios that might happen to your local NPR/PBS station. I
> stress the point might happen because each station’s
> financial situation is different.
>
> The first thing management will want to do is cut expenses.
> That could mean eliminating jobs, programming or a reduction
> in the amount of money a station may contribute to the
> TIAA-CREF, or other retirement system. If a station is
> unionized management might want to renegotiate existing
> contracts. Stations already understaffed may be forced to
> impose a hiring freeze.

You will see local programming cut first. Many local programs on stations are funded by CPB $$ and/or some federal money/grants. If the federal money/grants are yanked away (or severely cut), you will see those programs eliminated most likely. Programming will be hit first. Then staffing. As far as benefits, I don't see many stations touching these...or if they have to, it's one of the absolute last things they'll do. Management knows that the benefits many public radio stations offer are key.

> Some affiliates might not be able to afford some NPR
> programs, like Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

It's those programs they will keep on their air -- they have to to survive. Outside of of ME, ATC and Weekend Edition/ATC, they'll probably be reviewing their schedule and dropping some programs that are not so pledge-friendly and/or are costly to air.

> NPR executives should consider using some of that Joan Kroc
> endowment and reduce the cost of some network programs to
> affiliates as one way for stations to afford to continue
> airing these shows.

That is not possible at all. The Joan Kroc money is specifically designated for specific use by the late Kroc. This can not be used to "pay the bills", if you will. I believe it's used for training, fellowships or something like that.

> I have one final suggestion to make. Some public stations
> are top-heavy with managers who make a great deal of money.
> Before management considers layoffs it would be only fair
> that the pink slips are not just handed out to the worker
> bees. Of course we know that when layoffs do occur some top
> executives always manage to keep their jobs while those on
> the bottom of the food chain are the first to go.

I totally agree. It would be great if at these stations' Board Meetings, a "member of the public" showed up (planted by an employee) and even suggested these higher-ups all to forgive 15-20% of their salaries, each (until the situation gets better) or to let some of them go entirely. Who'd love to be a fly on the wall at THAT meeting?? LOL

I think the Feds are in for a real rude awakening by the public over this. Compared to just a couple of years ago, public radio continues to grow in listenership each and every year. They WILL see a firestorm over this.

Just a few weeks ago, Tomlinson (CPB's head) goes into a hissy fit because of what HE feels is biased coverage between both NPR and PBS (but yet, HIS actions come into question as well). Now, there are proposed cuts tremendously larger than what the President even had in the budget?

Yeah, oookkk! If they (Gov't) think the public hasn't read between the lines on this one, they ARE THAT stupid! The public knows exactly what they are doing. It's called 'revenge' and it'll backfired tremendously. While I agree there should be a plan to eventually eliminate the federal funding OVER SEVERAL YEARS, but what they've proposed now is outright, cold-blooded revenge. And people know it.

 

[markwooldridge]

There are other things that could happen:

NPR/PBS affiliates could merge with a nearby affiliate. This can cut down on real estate costs, staffing costs and management costs.

Even more networking. More local stations getting together to share resources, airspace, etc.

Less non-commercial competition. If two NPR stations in the area air Morning Edition and All Things Considered, then one of the stations would air alternative programming.

NPR takes over individual stations (an NPR O&O anyone?)

Just a few thoughts, Mark.

 

[bierkenstock]

Life after CPB

Mark, you and others have asserted here that CPB funds make up a very small portion of public radio's operating revenues. Now I am getting spam from moveon.org and some public broadcasting program producers asking me to sign a petititon to "save" PBS and NPR. You also said some time ago (and I agree with you) that public radio stations will need make it without government funding.

I know some public radio stations are not flush. But many pay their managers six figure salaries (as you point out), plus build lavish facilities for themselves and have money left over to invest in profit-making subsidiaries.

Public radio can't have it both ways. People on this board have claimed government money doesn't amount to much, so what's the big deal? Now they are claiming people need to "save" public radio from these proposed cuts. I wish they'd make up their mind.


> If the House of Representatives passes legislation
> recommended by a Congressional committee to cut 45% of
> government funding to Public Broadcasting, here are some
> scenarios that might happen to your local NPR/PBS station. I
> stress the point might happen because each station’s
> financial situation is different.
>
> The first thing management will want to do is cut expenses.
> That could mean eliminating jobs, programming or a reduction
> in the amount of money a station may contribute to the
> TIAA-CREF, or other retirement system. If a station is
> unionized management might want to renegotiate existing
> contracts. Stations already understaffed may be forced to
> impose a hiring freeze.
>
> Some affiliates might not be able to afford some NPR
> programs, like Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
> NPR executives should consider using some of that Joan Kroc
> endowment and reduce the cost of some network programs to
> affiliates as one way for stations to afford to continue
> airing these shows.
>
> More of an effort will have to be made to secure funding,
> not just from underwriters, but the general public. That
> will mean more pledge drives, much to the chagrin of
> listeners and viewers. One has to wonder if the newspaper
> editorial writers, and commentators, who are bemoaning cuts
> in public broadcasting actually contribute to their local
> NPR/PBS stations?
>
> I have one final suggestion to make. Some public stations
> are top-heavy with managers who make a great deal of money.
> Before management considers layoffs it would be only fair
> that the pink slips are not just handed out to the worker
> bees. Of course we know that when layoffs do occur some top
> executives always manage to keep their jobs while those on
> the bottom of the food chain are the first to go.
>

 

[tbetz]

Re: Life after CPB

> People on this board
> have claimed government money doesn't amount to much, so
> what's the big deal?

The smallest stations in the poorest areas of the country -- those stations that need CPB money most to serve a public that needs the most what public radio has to offer -- will be the stations that suffer.

As will their listeners, of course.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[network]

Confusing the Two

> I know some public radio stations are not flush. But many
> pay their managers six figure salaries (as you point out),
> plus build lavish facilities for themselves and have money
> left over to invest in profit-making subsidiaries.
>
> Public radio can't have it both ways. People on this board
> have claimed government money doesn't amount to much, so
> what's the big deal? Now they are claiming people need to
> "save" public radio from these proposed cuts. I wish they'd
> make up their mind.

The CPB issue and the salaries of some station managers shouldn't be tacked into the same thing. I don't think you're being fair to the rest of the hard-working people who create the content, etc. (although I DO see your point, trust me). Those high-paid managers should be the first ones to set the example and take a 20% cut in their salaries. Not a freeze -- a cut!!! If you're making $250k/year, a 15%-20% cut isn't going to send you to the poorhouse. They'll barely notice it (plus I am sure they'll find a way to write this off someone on their taxes).

What are these managers doing to create the content that's bringing in the underwriting and the listener contributions? NOTHING! It's those who actually create the content that get screwed (let go) and the managers continue to collect their paychecks. I would love to see employees at stations across the country ask in a staff meeting "are you willing to take a 15-20% cut in your salary to save public radio?" What about those people who make over 100k..."are you willing to take a 10% cut to save public radio"? How they answer should tell you exactly what they think of public radio and YOU as an employee!

I hate to say this (and if you're a manager reading this, forgive me, but...) they are NOT working that hard for that salary. Spare me the "I worked hard to get to this level". It's those making 25k/30k or so who are busting their butts.

The MANAGERS can't have it both ways. Government money doesn't amount to much. It's those high freaking salaries that contribute enough to the financial problems of some public radio stations. The sad thing is, if the public found out about it, they'd be in for a shock at fundraising time.

 

[edbeckdotcom]

Many states operate their own public broadcasting services, let them fund it through the state lottery. It would ensure public radio offers programming
for the state, something the CPB really isn't interested in for all practical
purposes. What does Morning Edition do for Anytown, USA? I guess we'll find
out when they fend for themselves, maybe put Morning Edition on the AM band, up against your local shock jock ... and then they can have it SPONSORED? Any corporate takers? - I hear silence.

-ee

 

[bierkenstock]

Re: Life after CPB

I know it's already been proposed online, but maybe the time has come for some consolidation. In many parts of the country, public radio is organized into regional or state-wide public radio networks. Maybe more states should do this. Maybe small market stations should merge with nearby big market stations. Heck, maybe NPR should become a national system with repeaters across the country and eliminate the cost of local overhead in each market.

Community radio stations: Those mostly seem to be the hobby of an individual or a small group of volunteers doing or playing "their thing." I question whether that is worthy of government subsidy.

I also question whether small stations in the "poorest areas" "need" public radio. Public radio's audience is educated, upscale and urban. That's who they target.

Bottom line, it is time for public radio to stand on it's own. Increase corporate underwriting and find a more cost-effective way to distribute the product. Currently, public radio's top programs have limited or delayed availability on satellite radio - to appease the local stations. Time to serve the audience first, not the high-salaried suits and their petty bureaucracies in most markets.


> > People on this board
> > have claimed government money doesn't amount to much, so
> > what's the big deal?
>
> The smallest stations in the poorest areas of the country --
> those stations that need CPB money most to serve a public
> that needs the most what public radio has to offer -- will
> be the stations that suffer.
>
> As will their listeners, of course.
>

 

[uncamark]

> > JUST A FEW THOUGHTS ON THIS FUNDING CUTBACK...PARTICULARLY
>
> > IN THE CASE
> > OF NPR. FIRST, WAS IT NOT NPR THAT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE
>
> > LOW POWER
> > FM MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY? ALONG WITH OTHERS OF COURSE.
>
> > DOES ONE ASSUME
> > THEY SPENT QUITE A FEW BUCKS DOING THAT? AND SECOND, WAS
> > NOT NPR THE
> > OTHER PARTY ALONG WITH THE STATE OF OREGON AND AMERICAN
> > FAMILY ASSOCIATION
> > THAT FOUGHT IN COURT THE POINT SYSTEM FOR NCE MX GROUPS?
> > PERHAPS KARMA IS BEING SERVED.
>
> Dunno about the karma thing, but yeah, you're right, about
> the LPFM.
> my understanding at the time was that it was primarily over
> some major interference/engineering type issues rather than
> any inherent hatred of the concept of LPFM, though.

That didn't stop many of the LPFM proponents, who do seem to have a conspiratorial streak, to complain that evil corporate capitalist AmeriKKKa, who they consider NPR part of, was trying to keep the truth from being expressed. After all, the battlecry of many LPFM proponents is "Take Back the Airwaves!", under the assumption that Ralph Nader would be the real President if Karl Rove hadn't "stolen" it.

Their opinion, not mine--and I'm no Bush lover.