NPR faces $2.6 million deficit

[raccoonradio]

There has been a loss of "advertising revenue". But, I thought they were non-commercial?
This actually means corporate giving. (Among the big bad corporations that gave to NPR
in 2008, according to a report, was Fox Broadcasting...nice.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/npr-sees-sharp-downturn-in-advertising-revenue-leading-to-talk-of-cuts/2012/05/16/gIQAKWjkUU_story.html

>>Another problem area: The strong audience growth that NPR’s news and entertainment programs experienced over the past decade appears to have flattened, a potentially worrisome development because more stations are carrying NPR’s programs.

More calls to defund, charges of liberal bias, etc. The poverty wages of some NPR
employees, according to Breitbart.com:
>>The annual salaries of some of NPR’s “stars” don’t look as if they reflect a failing network: Robert Siegel makes $341,992, Rene Montage $328,309, Steve Inskeep $320,950, Scott Simon $311,958, and Michelle Norris $279,900.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/17/NPR-Having-Financial-Trouble

The FCC should let them run ads. "Car Talk will be right back after this message from
Ben and Jerry's." No more taxpayer funding, please. They'd survive, just let em run ads
(REAL ads not these donorship announcements)

[aaronread]

The FCC should let them run ads.

Not the FCC's call to make.  It would require a modification of the U.S.C. by Congress...which has no appetite to do so.  Why should they?  The Democrats find it more advantageous to defend Big Bird's non-commercial status from the evil Republicans, the Republicans find it a handy way to get the base excited about those tax-n-spend Democrats without ever having to take action.   Both sides have reason to keep things just as they are.

In a more roundabout way, the courts could change it, I guess...although the decision by the 9th Circuit Court striking down the prohibition of political or issue ads on NCE stations DID find sufficient justification to allow the ban on commercial advertising to stand.   So not too likely to change via the courts.

[TheBigA]

There has been a loss of "advertising revenue". But, I thought they were non-commercial?

The term "advertising revenue" was in the headline, written by the Post.  NPR doesn't advertise, and actually their funding announcements are very conservative.  The fact is that all of media is in a depression.  NPR is not immune.  What really needs to be done is for the tax laws to be changes so that corporations are more encouraged to give to non-profits. 

>>The annual salaries of some of NPR’s “stars” don’t look as if they reflect a failing network:

A few things to point out: Those are a small group of show hosts.  The rest of the staff make substantially less.  These are all senior staff, with more than 20 years seniority, and reflects multiple cost of living increases.  All on-air staff (and all other newsies) are members of AFTRA, and their salaries are set by the union with additional performance bonuses.  Compare their salaries to the hosts of Nightline or the network newscasts.

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It would require a modification of the U.S.C. by Congress...which has no appetite to do so.  Why should they?  The Democrats find it more advantageous to defend Big Bird's non-commercial status from the evil Republicans, the Republicans find it a handy way to get the base excited about those tax-n-spend Democrats without ever having to take action.   Both sides have reason to keep things just as they are.

Only people who think today's dysfunctional political rhetoric has some legitimate place in society can look upon today's circumstances of political warfare over Public Broadcasting as having "some kind of socially redeeming value".

We need for "a gang of six" or something to sit down with the FCC and with the leadership of Public Broadcasting and come back with rational modifications if appropriate.  Once we get that SUPER IMPORTANT, EARTH SHAKING, NATION PARALYZING topic cleared up,  then Congress and the President can leisurely take up the minor, insignificant topics like unemployment, nuclear arms control, protecting the economy, etc.  You know... all the things that don't affect people.  But getting NPR strightened out... that is priority number one.  If we let that go on un-repaired people are going to die,  children are going to go hungry, and space traversing objects are going to crash into San Francisco bay.   

[northwoods]

Privatize it. Save the taxpayers money and get the government out of a business they know nothing about in the first place.

[nocomradio]

Privatize it. Save the taxpayers money and get the government out of a business they know nothing about in the first place.

 Bingo!

 Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful? Let NPR try to stand on its own and if it cannot, then let it fail.  Business of any sort is pretty simple: You need as much or more revenue coming in than what is going out. That is the same whether you are broadcasting, selling widgets, or running a convenience market. The government however does not seem to grasp this very simple concept. They are more apt to keep tossing money at the problem until it crashes and burns spectacularly.

[TheBigA]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful? Let NPR try to stand on its own and if it cannot, then let it fail.

Right. Commercial radio is doing a great job of serving the public.  The circumstances that led to the creation of NPR 45 years ago have not gotten better.  Radio stations are doing LESS local news, not more.  Radio stations are providing LESS intelligent talk, not more.  Radio stations are becoming more corporate and less local.  So you want to take away any alternatives.   If there was no non-commercial radio, there would be no place to hear classical music, jazz, or alternative rock.  Commercial radio has given up on those formats.  The American public deserves a choice in media. 

By the way, the government isn't running NPR.  Just providing a portion of its funding.  NPR is an independent organization that gets federal funding just like millions of other organizations. 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, in any field, tell me where the government has actually been able to run anything and make it successful?

Yup.  I can.  And if it doesn't get screwed up by some one by the time you get there, you will experience it someday, if you a lucky enough to live a long life.

Medicare runs smoothly.  (Hospital and Medical)

Congress got the bright idea to PRIVATIZE the Part D prescription coverage for seniors.  It is run by CORPORATIONSf a.k.a. insurance companies.

To put it mildly, dealing with Part D is a bitch!  Dealing with the government run Medicare is a piece of cake.

[nocomradio]

Right. Commercial radio is doing a great job of serving the public.  The circumstances that led to the creation of NPR 45 years ago have not gotten better.  Radio stations are doing LESS local news, not more.  Radio stations are providing LESS intelligent talk, not more.  Radio stations are becoming more corporate and less local.  So you want to take away any alternatives.   If there was no non-commercial radio, there would be no place to hear classical music, jazz, or alternative rock.  Commercial radio has given up on those formats.  The American public deserves a choice in media. 

By the way, the government isn't running NPR.  Just providing a portion of its funding.  NPR is an independent organization that gets federal funding just like millions of other organizations. 

  I agree, commercial radio is doing a very poor job of serving the community. BUT, they are making money.

 NPR isn't. Without their cash infusions from the government, they'd be bankrupt in a short time. If they were truly serving the public so much better than the commercial stations, they'd be self-supporting. They are not. No matter how you slice it, they are a sponge, soaking up cash from the government trough to no good end. The government may not run them totally, but whenever the government begins to fund anything, they do and will have a say in how its run and we all know where that leads.

 As for Medicare, I have not yet had that pleasure, but I don't look forward to it either. Having dealt with the VA, SBA, IRS  and other government programs and agencies over the years and sometimes at length, I can't imagine it being much better.

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

  I agree, commercial radio is doing a very poor job of serving the community. BUT, they are making money.

 NPR isn't. Without their cash infusions from the government, they'd be bankrupt in a short time.

NPR seems to be plowing a lot of money into research and development.  If the government money dried up,  the promotion and research centered on digital broadcasting could be cut in a hurry.  The world wide collection of news correspondents could be cut way, way back and they would still have international news coverage that no commercial broadcaster in America comes close to matching.

I think you over-estimate how much NPR depends on government money.