Vivian Schiller Creates Member Station Backlash

[MattParker]

NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepherd latest online column describes her visit to the member station group in San Antonio, TX. From her account, the people there feel they got blind-sided when NPR dumped Juan Williams with no warning and no notice to anyone (and no immediate explanation). Shepherd indicates other stations were in the same boat. San Antonio was in the middle of a pledge campaign (as were other stations; still more had them coming up). Instead of pledges, the phone lines were filled with angry listeners calling to complain. Shepherd says member station staffs are "not feeling so loyal to NPR or Schiller" after this.

NPR is controlled by a board dominated by representatives from member stations. They can fire Vivian. They fired CEO Ken Stern, who got NPR finances healthy again, because he was moving too fast for the stations' tastes into new media. Now Vivian is costing stations money.

 

[TheBigA]

Well there's no documentation that this controversy is costing money yet, so let's not jump to conclusions. I read one story where the angry callers were obviously not listeners because they kept saying "I'm not going to watch NPR again." This was similar to the Dixie Chicks situation where country radio stations were hit with angry callers who had never listened to the station before, but threatened to stop listening.

However, this is not the first time this particular NPR CEO has angered affiliates. She gave an interview a few months ago that insulted a few stations, saying internet radio will take the place of traditional radio. She also said that the company stopped calling itself National Public Radio because of the growth of non-broadcast media.

So she's saying controversial things. It's up to the board to weigh all the comments, and see if yet another change in leadership will be better or worse for the operation. One key aspect we don't know is how active she is behind the scenes for stations. That's where the rubber meets the road, and a CEO's career is often made more in private than in public.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Well there's no documentation that this controversy is costing money yet, so let's not jump to conclusions.

Right, just because the crew is reporting that the ship is taking on water, there's no sense attempting to stop the leaks until the boat is securely resting on the bottom of the ocean. That will be proof that it was sinking.

 

[TheBigA]

That's not what's happening. If you're going to say something is costing money, it's not too much to ask "how much?"

One shouldn't be in such a rush to lynch someone. Isn't that part of the criticism aimed at NPR in the Williams firing? A rush to judgement? Only later was it pointed out that he had been warned before.

Certainly, Republican men believe she should be fired. How many of them regularly contribute to NPR? My bet is not many.

 

[aaronread]

Right, just because the crew is reporting that the ship is taking on water, there's no sense attempting to stop the leaks until the boat is securely resting on the bottom of the ocean. That will be proof that it was sinking.

Working as a manager for an NPR affiliate I am privy to information not always given out to the general public, much like any manager in any business. I won't give specifics because I don't think everything's been really tabulated yet, but I know of at least a half dozen stations that saw significant INCREASES in donation and number of donors...and at least two stations that have seen marked DECREASES and are now scrambling to plan additional year-end fundraisers. There does seem to be SOME geographic/geo-political correlations but it's not universal. So far I can really say for sure is that Williams' firing, and the subsequent fallout, had a definite impact but what that impact is seems to vary wildly.

I don't think one can say exactly how (or even IF) this little escapade is "costing" money yet. And more importantly, exactly WHO it is costing money.

BTW, the infamous statement by Schiller about how radio won't exist in twenty years (or whatever it was) was later proven to be a liveblog entry that was not even close to a quote; it took something she said WILDLY out of context and even then was merely the liveblogger's interpretation...not what Schiller actually said or even proported to mean. I won't speculate on what Schiller DOES actually think about the long-term role NPR member stations have within NPR, but I can tell you that quote has nothing to do with it.

 

[MattParker]

Aaron, as long as NPR is controlled by member stations trying to protect their dependance on antiquated technology, NPR will be hobbled. Stations fired the last CEO for trying to bring NPR into the 21 Century. And whoever said it, I will take the bet that radio (AM and FM broadcasting) won't exist in 20 years - except maybe as a nostalgic curiosity. NPR needs to focus on serving its audience - not a bunch of station managers trying to protect their jobs and their turf. It's called "public radio" - not "non-commercial station radio." Even more obsolete than radio broadcasting (now approaching its second century) as a distribution model, are public radio's organizational and business models. National Public Radio needs to get free of local public radio (and vice versa). If Vivian does get fired, there will be some irony in that both she and Juan Williams got sacked for saying something somebody did not want to hear.

 

[TheBigA]

National Public Radio needs to get free of local public radio (and vice versa).

Keep in mind the reason this happened is because public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were basically foresaken by the institution that established them: the government. In order to provide the level of content it produces, and not in fact compete with the stations that carry its programs, NPR has to have a dependable and consistent source of funding. The difference between the audience and station managers is that the station managers are actual broadcasters who have knowledge and expertise in what NPR does. They also have the time. The audience doesn't. While it sounds nice to put the public in charge of public broadcasting (I can see the press release already), my experience with the public in running a community radio station is they really don't have the commitment or knowledge required to do the work.

I think the local station managers are well aware of the growing multi-platform direction of broadcasting. They are different from their commercial brethren in that they don't have a personal investment in the physical plant. They are trustees. So what Schiller was saying wasn't news to them. Their problem is how does program supplier and station coexist. Commercial stations have the same problem with syndication. Those roles need to be integrated. From what I've seen from the outside, NPR has begun a process of funding and servicing local station web sites to make them unique and local from the national site.

 

[MattParker]

BigA: Valid points. My point is that NPR is controlled by local stations. Local stations elect NPR's board and station reps hold most of the seats on the board. Station managers do not have a financial investment in the physical plant but they do have a personal investment. Their jobs. Their livelihoods. Their bonuses. Their position in the community. Their egos.

No, I don't think listeners should be "in charge." But NPR's focus should be on serving listeners, not on placating station managers and telling them what they want to hear. There is an inherent conflict of interest between station managements and NPR. NPR needs the freedom to chart its own course.

The current situation is like cable systems electing the CNN board and senior management. Or Ford dealers electing their board and CEO. The world has changed since the Carnegie Commission and public broadcasting needs to change with it.

 

[TheBigA]

Station managers do not have a financial investment in the physical plant but they do have a personal investment. Their jobs. Their livelihoods. Their bonuses. Their position in the community. Their egos.

All those things are dependent on a strong national system. The public broadcasters recognize that. If you attend a public radio conference, the mantra you hear is "we work better together." At the end of the day, the money has to come from somewhere. If not from the government, then where? In 1983, the group that oversaw NPR when federal funding dried up suggested that the stations would pay for the programming. If you don't like that solution, who else can provide that amount of money without compromising the integrity of the product (ie, endless on air begathons or doing coverage that favors a particular funder)?

The world has changed since the Carnegie Commission and public broadcasting needs to change with it.

I think they have, and you don't like the solution.

By the way, the big cable systems have a lot to say about the channels they carry. And several cable company CEOs sit on the boards of some major cable channels.

 

[MattParker]

A: I agree with most of what you say. I just don't think stations or station reps should elect the NPR board, or that station reps should hold most of the seats on the board. Stations would continue to have influence because they buy programming. They should not have the power to hire and fire CEOs nor to block NPR from moving to new media and other forms of content distribution.

I think a free market would work well for public radio.

I'd like to see:

• Stations moving to even more local programming and to even more regional and national distribution of station-produced programs.
• NPR broken up: A news organization. A satellite distribution company. A music programming provider. All separate and independent.
• NPR News should offer content directly to end-users (possibly behind a pay-wall), web portals and even commercial broadcasters.
• End all government subsidies to public radio. Free up current restrictions (i.e., call to action, comparisons) on underwriting announcements. If public radio stations sell underwriting announcements, they may not solicit donations on-air (and vice versa); one or the other, not both.
• End religious broadcasting, educational broadcasting and LPFM "community" in the FM non-commercial band. Open up bandwidth for more public radio stations.

 

[TheBigA]

I think a free market would work well for public radio.

The reason public broadcasting was formed was because the free market had, at least in the minds of the FCC and some members of Congress, ruined broadcasting. I think there are a lot of people who feel it's even worse now. Put public broadcasting in a similar situation, and they're very likely to go for the exact same lowest common denominator programming as commercial broadcasters.

I think NPR and member stations would love to see underwriting rules loosened. I think the NAB and commercial stations would object. Same with moving stations out of the non-commercial band. Where are you gonna put em? And who needs even more non commercial stations competing for local funding?

All I can hope for is that the government doesn't repeat what it did in 1983, which was cut funding without providing any changes in underwriting laws. NPR was left with no alternative but to do what it did. If anything, the tax laws have been tightened in ways that have hurt non-profits without offering ways for them to get alternative funding.

The reason some of the things you list haven't happened is it would require a lot of people to agree. It becomes a political football where agendas get in the way of what's best. You might be able to sneak some non-com changes past the NAB if they got more loosening of ownership laws. Or maybe slip this in with the RIAA royalty. But as lots of people have learned, change comes with compromise, and most people don't want to compromise.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

End religious broadcasting, educational broadcasting and LPFM "community" in the FM non-commercial band. Open up bandwidth for more public radio stations.

What is a "public radio station" under your definition? How is a public radio station different than an LPFM station?

You see Educational Broadcasting belonging up in the commercial channels but NOT in the non-commercial band?

It seems that the commercial FM band is coming close to being fully utilitized. Are there actually frequencies available to accommodate the stations you are ready to shove out of the non-commercial frequencies?

So if these moves (if physically possible) take place and free up a lot of non-commercial space, who gets to use these suddenly available channels, and what are they allowed to do with them? I will have to create some words here in a effort to conceptualize what you have called for: If we can't religionize on these frequencies, and if we can't educationalize (whatever that includes) on these frequencies and if we can't communityize on these frequencies... what can we use them for under this concept you visualize?

 

[JimmyJames]

There's also the problem that large religious broadcasters and corporate radio would jump at the chance to swallow up those frequencies to eliminate fracturing of their audience. They'd rather own it all than compete, in many cases. Which would kill off any alternative.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I like to know why Vivian Schiller hasn't been fired yet for her comments about Juan Williams?

Apparently it's okay for the CEO of NPR to allude that Mr. Williams needs to consult a psychiatrist, but Mr. Williams can't express an "opinion" without losing his job.

Double-standards if I ever seen it.

Personally I'm glad to see some NPR affiliates are feeling the heat from the public, especially during fundraising drives.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Apparently it's okay for the CEO of NPR to allude that Mr. Williams needs to consult a psychiatrist, but Mr. Williams can't express an "opinion" without losing his job.

We have yet to hear the WHOLE story.
We have yet to hear the REAL story.

Was Juan Williams terminated because:
1. He engaged in some bigotry through his terminology about people on airplane flights.
2. Because he insisted on also appearon on another media channel that NPR found unacceptable.
3. Because NPR insists that people they refer to as journalists not express partisan personal opinions lest they cease to be seen as "true journalists".

I think those are three scenarios floating around.

Journalists are paid to, and have a job description, that involves being impartial in reporting documented facts. (I know, it is common for journalists to not quite live up to the concept.) Journalists are not hired for their opinions.

On the other hand, CEOs are hired because they have opinions on what will make the organization work, and CEOs are paid to enunciate those opinions so that stake-holders (employees, donors, affiliates in the case of NPR) know what they are trying to get done.

It would not necessarily be a double standard for NPR to not allow Mr. Williams and other employees and contractors to give expression in public about their opinions, and for Ms. Schiller to express her opinion. That IS what she is paid to do.

One version of the Juan Williams story is this: As a "contractor" or consultant (not an employee) it was understood that he would also work with other channels (Fox, CNN, whoever was willing to pony up the fees) but he had been advised multiple times that he was stepping outside the box of what NPR considered to be a journalist-standard for giving personal opinions as opposed to news.

I suspect the board at NPR may have some advice for Vivian Schiller and what she should and should not say in public or private about the possible psychiatric condition of employees, contractors, consultants and others. I suspect that if the board and offended affiliate station managers have to scold and correct Ms. Schiller multiple times, she too could find herself dismissed.

When we know the TRUE details of the Juan Williamss incident, and as we observe the behavior and maybe the discipline of Ms. Schiller in coming months, then we can make a more accurate statement as to whether a double standard is being applied by NPR. Today is too soon. (unless you have access to FACTS that we the unwashed do not have.) ;D

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What Ms. Shiller did is tantamount to character assassination with her comment about Mr. Williams.
If I was Juan Williams I would have sued Vivian Schiller for defamation of character.

All of this will be a moot point come January 2011 when the victorious Republicans in Congress passes legislation that would eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting.

 

[Talk_Dude]

What Ms. Shiller did is tantamount to character assassination with her comment about Mr. Williams.
If I was Juan Williams I would have sued Vivian Schiller for defamation of character.

All of this will be a moot point come January 2011 when the victorious Republicans in Congress passes legislation that would eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting.

Don't hold your breath. The Republicans in Congress with have more important things to worry about than a few bucks going to public broadcasting. And, they'll have to deal with Presidential vetoes. Eventually, public broadcasting funding will be cut, but don't expect it overnight. What's more, there's an excellent chance that in order to make a deal to get Obama to sign bills, Congress will have to throw the Democrats a few bones. One of those bones could be continuing to throw money away on public broadcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

Federal dollars won't get Juan Williams rehired or change anything.

 

[JimmyJames]

PTFP funding to construct rural public media outlets is not "money thrown away."

 

[Talk_Dude]

PTFP funding to construct rural public media outlets is not "money thrown away."

No, it's pork used to help incumbents get relected. People like Senator Jack S. Phogbound are still around.