Will NPR Save the News?......

[listener-in]

…..is the title of interesting piece about NPR which discusses how well it’s doing compared with other news organizations, and which also talks about the threat to its revenue model, thanks largely to its success in developing a strong presence on the web.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/finely-tuned.html

A quote from the NPR’s new CEO reads:

"I've worked in a lot of big media companies now," she says. "I mean, this is my fifth [The New York Times, Discovery Channel, CNN, TBS], and I've never seen such a connection between the institution and the audience members. The power of that is extraordinary. The journalism and the credibility -- that's the obvious stuff. It's the personal connection that's the secret sauce."

Lesson no. 1: the connection with the audience is what too many broadcasters willfully abandoned, first in their scramble for profits and stock prices that they thought would keep rising without end, and then in an even more desperate scramble to stay above water once it hit them that there would be no pot of gold. And they wonder why they lose listeners.

The article describes NPR’s increasing tension between servicing its member stations and catering to audiences that it has cultivated on line. Neither NPR nor its stations seem to know how that will shake out.

Lesson no. 2: all broadcasters had better be thinking hard about how they’ll live with webcasting. The radio managements that are best prepared are the ones that will eventually thrive, because webcasting isn’t going to go away.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Stations that are nothing but NPR repeaters will find less reason to exist. Stations that feature good local programming, and rely on NPR for national content will do fine.

Studies are starting to come out showing that people gravitate toward their local station's website, even for content from national networks. Wise programmers will use the net to strengthen ties to the local stations. I think that WBFO is a great example for other stations to follow. They are not only doing some fine local programming, they're working to expand their reach into younger age groups.

 

[Mark Giardina]

In order to have good local programming a station needs to find qualified personnel. That is becoming tougher as the years pass since, I believe, more college students are shying away from radio as a career and instead concentrating on television. Meanwhile veterans are staying where they are because either they enjoy the stations they work for, or are concerned about the current economy and what a move to a larger market might bring. After all even some public stations are cutting back due to a lack of national underwriting and government funding.

NPR stations should have and in fact do require local content because their audience demands that. The question remains however how big of a staff is required to not only announce local news, but to gather it? Obviously a morning drive person is needed. But you also need people to be in the field or on the phone gathering news. If the station has a talk show a producer is helpful in lining up guests for the host. And if something happens during afternoon drive, it's impossible for just the newscaster to handle both announcing duties while trying to gather the latest information. Trust me I've been in that situation more times than I want to remember.

To answer the question can NPR save news is really a tough one to answer. Let's be honest. In many markets public radio doesn't draw the audience some commercial stations do, and those commercial stations either have reduced or eliminated their local news staffs. And with the younger generation using other means to gather information besides radio, it may be very likely in the near future that radio news might end up in the archives of radio history like the live programming of the 1930s and 40s have.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The answer to the personnel dilemma is right in your post, Mark - IF public radio will take advantage of it.

There are plenty of "former" commercial radio news people - and even TV people - out there with plenty of experience. If NPR stations were smart, they'd take advantage of that talent and experience. In fact, I'd bet that there a more than a few who would work on a part-time basis as they raise their families or try to make a living doing something they love by taking on several part-time gigs. That would be one way to fill out the need for reporters during different dayparts.

It seems to me that there's some bias against commercial broadcasters in the public broadcasting world. I've seen instances where very good commercial broadcasters were passed over in favor of inexperienced public broadcasters because they were "too radio".

 

[Mark Giardina]

The answer to the personnel dilemma is right in your post, Mark - IF public radio will take advantage of it.

There are plenty of "former" commercial radio news people - and even TV people - out there with plenty of experience. If NPR stations were smart, they'd take advantage of that talent and experience. In fact, I'd bet that there a more than a few who would work on a part-time basis as they raise their families or try to make a living doing something they love by taking on several part-time gigs. That would be one way to fill out the need for reporters during different dayparts.

It seems to me that there's some bias against commercial broadcasters in the public broadcasting world. I've seen instances where very good commercial broadcasters were passed over in favor of inexperienced public broadcasters because they were "too radio".

Yes Rox there are a large number of former commercial radio news people that would love to work in public radio. However not many pub-radio newscaster/reporters are quitting their jobs these days because of the economy and the stability factor. Yet some public broadcasting operations may be forced to let staff go because of a cutback in government funding, plus a reduction in national and local underwriting.

As for your comment about bias, I can personally relate to that. When I first tried to go from commercial to public radio I came away with the impression from the person interviewing me that I wasn't "worthy" enough to work for the station mostly because I spent the good part of my career in commercial radio. Fortunately for me, later on, I managed to get a job because I knew the news director and he was familiar with my work ethic.

 

[TheBigA]

I've spent time in both public and private radio, and they are two very different beasts. Most commercial broadcasters find the pace of public radio too slow. My experience was that NPR is a very insular place. The NPR view of the world stops at the Potomac River. If it's not in either the Post or the Times, it's not news. I laughed for an hour when I read that, in a cost-cutting move, they had canceled all newspaper subscriptions. My first thought was...how will they decide what to report?

 

[aaronread]

My experience was that NPR is a very insular place. The NPR view of the world stops at the Potomac River.

That's what we have the BBC World Service for! ;D

Most commercial broadcasters find the pace of public radio too slow.

And what you call "too slow" some 22 million listeners every morning call "thorough reporting". Po-TAY-toe, Po-TAH-toe.

To be honest, I think the reason NPR is canceling all their newspaper subscriptions is because most of the papers are ripping off NPR's reporting rather than the reverse, which has been the more traditional route. That is something of a boost on NPR, since they've been expanding their foreign bureaus while other outlets are closing theirs...but really it's more a sad commentary on the state of newspapers these days, and how little reporting they do.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

I've spent time in both public and private radio, and they are two very different beasts. Most commercial broadcasters find the pace of public radio too slow. My experience was that NPR is a very insular place. The NPR view of the world stops at the Potomac River. If it's not in either the Post or the Times, it's not news. I laughed for an hour when I read that, in a cost-cutting move, they had canceled all newspaper subscriptions. My first thought was...how will they decide what to report?

You may not have heard WBFO-FM and WNED-AM, two outstanding public radio stations in Buffalo. I've been a fan of both stations for many years. Having known Al Wallack (WNED-AM) and Mark Scott (WBFO) for years, I appreciate the work of these two gentlemen and their staffs, as well as the contribution each station makes to our community.

Over the years, I've given both stations considerable TSL , even (perhaps "especially") years ago when I was PD of a commercial news-talk competitor. Now that I'm between jobs (what a strange euphemism) I'm listening even more, especially to WNED-AM.

Yesterday, for example, while doing some carpentry work around the house, I listened to On Point (produced by WBUR, Boston) on WNED-AM. The program was especially relevent as it discussed the detection and treatment of prostate cancer and the PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test which was developed in Buffalo at Roswell Park Cancer Insitutute. Having gone through annual PSA tests and a prostate biopsy, I was listening to the program in what I call "first-person-singular" mode.

Although On Point is a network program, both WNED-AM and WBFO are known for local in-depth reporting, extended news coverage and issues-oriented discussion of issues that affect the lives of Western New York residents. Each station uniquely serves listeners who seek more than scorched-earth talk radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Back to my original point, great reporters are great reporters, and I don't know of any who can't adapt easily to having more time to tell a story in greater depth. Public stations have an opportunity to add experienced talent as part-timers, improving their coverage without the cost of benefits for full-time reporters.

BTW, I'm not advocating cutting back on full-time anchors and staff. Somebody needs to be there to provide continuity and context.

 

[alw]

The following e-memo was sent to pub-radio management by the new NPR President Vivian Schiller......for your consideration:

I’m pleased to share some exciting news with you. At a time when all of our economics are under increasing pressure, it is affirming to know that we are more relevant to the audience than ever. According to just-released Arbitron ratings for Fall 2008, the total number of listeners to NPR member stations has grown by an impressive 6% in the past year, reaching an all-time high of 32.7 million weekly listeners. In addition, NPR programming and newscasts now reach 27.5 million weekly listeners on NPR stations -- that’s 7% year-over-year growth.

In addition to overall growth for public radio listening, the Fall ratings show considerable growth for several station-produced programs distributed by NPR: Fresh Air, The Diane Rehm Show, On the Media and On Point set new record highs, as did NPR’s All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Talk of the Nation, Tell Me More, Weekend Edition, and Wait Wait...Don’t Tell Me!, which hasn’t stopped growing since the program launched in 1998.

While we are delighted with this book, NPR is not taking the audience’s loyalty for granted. We will continue a rigorous process of program evaluation.

This news comes at a particularly welcome time for everyone in public radio. With every listener evaluating their giving options, now is the time to reinforce why public radio is so vital in the lives of listeners. On behalf of everyone at NPR, thank you for making this remarkable story possible.

 

[TheBigA]

The following e-memo was sent to pub-radio management by the new NPR President Schiller......for your consideration:

You can balance out the good news in Schiller's email with these quotes from the Washington Post:

NPR faces declining funding from all its major sources: corporate underwriters that give money in exchange for on-air mentions, charitable foundations and annual dues from almost 900 member stations. Many NPR member stations have announced staff cutbacks of their own in the face of declining listener contributions and other revenue.

"It would be a dangerous correlation to say there's a direct relationship between the size of our audience and our revenue," said Schiller, who took over as CEO in January. "But the fact that we have such a large and loyal audience means that when we come out of this economic slump, we'll continue to be strong. I wish I felt the same way about my brethren in the rest of the media."

 

[TheBigA]

You may not have heard WBFO-FM and WNED-AM, two outstanding public radio stations in Buffalo.

I've heard of both of them, and as I said, my comments were about NPR, the network news operation in Washington, where they produce Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

As I said, there are exceptions among the affiliates. There are many NPR stations that could easily exist without NPR. And there are many that would be hard pressed to raise the kind of money they do without the national programming. There is good news and bad news to the NPR branding. The good news is the identity it brings a station. The bad news is that you can loose control of your local branding. Some stations have allowed the national brand take over their station. Others provide something unique and local to their communities beyond the national programming. But from the numbers I've seen, there are more stations that simply run the network 24/7 with little local content. And as stations face cutbacks, you're likely to see more of that. The financial problems facing commercial stations aren't unique to commercial radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Local vs. National

And yet, TheBigA is the one who advocates syndication of a handful "major talents" in the commercial world since they'd provide "better" programming than "pampered" local talent.

It's bad for local public stations to rely too much on NPR, but it's OK for local commercial stations to drop local content and replace it with national?

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Local vs. National

It's bad for local public stations to rely too much on NPR, but it's OK for local commercial stations to drop local content and replace it with national?

It's a matter of percentage. What we're talking about are the NPR stations that are 85% syndication. I've heard stations that don't do local cut-ins during ME and ATC. They just let the network fills run. Heck I heard a station let the 1K tone run at the top of the hour. I'm not kidding.

 

[listener-in]

To be honest, I think the reason NPR is canceling all their newspaper subscriptions is because most of the papers are ripping off NPR's reporting rather than the reverse, which has been the more traditional route. That is something of a boost on NPR, since they've been expanding their foreign bureaus while other outlets are closing theirs...but really it's more a sad commentary on the state of newspapers these days, and how little reporting they do.

Indeed. Things are getting bad for the printed word. Though I've pointed out how radio needs to adapt to webcasting, I can't imagine how the cause of democracy, whether at the national, state or local level, can be served by only a video and audio culture. It's unthinkable for a university city like Ann Arbor to lose its only daily newspaper, yet it's about to happen. One has to wonder how bad the finances of newspapers really are. Are they really losing money, or are owners bailing out because their return on investment is no longer in the stratosphere as it was not too long ago? I don't think the Buffalo News has a better enviroment than other papers right now, yet while Gannet announces further cuts in employees' hours (better than layoffs, at least), the BN editor prints an upbeat statement about the health and future of her paper. Maybe owner Warren Buffet, no business slouch, is content to accept lower returns until better times come along.

As far as Rochester is concerned, public broadcasting is the only outlet that comes close to filling the gaps in the D&C's coverage of local news & politics, notably with 1370 Connection; even so, more than a few of 1370's news stories are rip-and-read from the D & C. That's why, despite any misgivings some of us have that WXXI's management may be top-heavy, I unequivocally support the campaign against the governor's disproportionate cuts to public broadcasters' funding. Otherwise, maybe the Buffalo News should come to town.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Maybe NPR is cancelling newspaper subscriptions because they can get the same information for free from the Internet sites run by the papers. Besides, it's easier to cut & paste from the on-line version...

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe NPR is cancelling newspaper subscriptions because they can get the same information for free from the Internet sites run by the papers. Besides, it's easier to cut & paste from the on-line version...

If you'd seen the memo, you'd know why they're canceling subscriptions. The memo explains why. For most of the hosts at NPR, cut and paste is done with scissors, not a computer. I'm not kidding.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Pondering the subject of this post I think that most of us agree that news is important. Yet I know that while my generation listens, reads or watches the news on a regular basis, my children's generation does not. There lies the problem.

With the exception of an ice storm, plane crash, or other emergencies, a large number of people just don't give a darn about news; be it local or national. And of course it doesn't help the cause when radio stations abandon news coverage altogether and newspapers are going out of business.

Granted that public radio does fill that void mostly because of people like Mark Scott, Al Wallack, Bud Lowell, Karen DeWitt and many others who have been around for a number of years and know how to gather news. My concern is what happens after these esteemed individuals decide to either retire or find another career? Are there enough people interested in news to fill the gap that will be left?

 

[Element9]

Reading between the lines of Ms. Sullivan's commentary in The News, it's clear The News faces serious challengings. Sullivan notes the layoffs outside of the news room but remains stalwart regarding the News' editorial superiority. The Writers Guild met earlier this week to discuss other critical editorial issues.

Newspapers are an expensive proposition, but this Republic would be at a loss without them. Some body, some where will figure out the numbers regarding monetizing the on-line product so that newspapers derive greater benefit. Until then, advertising revenue and circulation will decline because 20 and 30 somethings don't need to feel the paper in their hands and advertisers will be more selective in choosing price efficient avenues to effectively target and promote their products. This might be good for radio, if radio gets its spit together and companies actually hire experienced radio sales professionals who know how to sell the product, especially if/when the product is good.

Radio news departments at one time rivaled and trumped newspapers' efforts when it came to providing breaking and even in-depth news. If you're long-in-the-tooth enough to remember WBEN, WEBR, WGR, WKBW, WYSL and even FM stations, WPHD, WBUF and WGRQ radio news departments chasing stories, nothing could top their immediacy and professionalism.

The minute the FCC minimized the requirements for news marked radio's demise. Argue this point until you're blue in the face, I'll not be convinced otherwise.

 

[Mark Giardina]

The minute the FCC minimized the requirements for news marked radio's demise. Argue this point until you're blue in the face, I'll not be convinced otherwise.

You don't have to convince me; I was there when it happened.

As I've mentioned before at one time here in Rochester there were eight radio stations with their own separate news departments that did one hell of a job gathering and reporting the news.

Today there are just two stations and both of them have experienced a decline in the number of people working in those news departments.

You can't gather and report the news if you don't have the staff! Plain and simple.
Having part-timers and casuals is good, but it doesn't make up for the veterans who have been around long enough to know who to contact for what story they might be working on.

As stations continue to jettison more and more people with seniority, just to balance their bottom line, stations will find it next to impossible to keep the credibility that has been built up over the years with listeners.