New NEA study blasts NPR

[Lazaro Vega]

NPR abandoning cultural mission? New NEA study says yes.

http://www.nea.gov/pub/Notes/92.pdf

article at the Washington Post:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2...ay_morning.html

Blue Lake Public Radio has maintained a mix of classical music, jazz and NPR news while this trend towards talk has dominated the airwaves. Which means running a station on less than a million dollars a year ($840,000 this year coming in part through $370,000 from listeners and $240,000 in underwriting from local businesses and arts organizations).

The NEA's argument that the digital domain is a secondary service to FM is absolutely correct. There are no terrestrial FM stations I know of with a larger listenership on the web than on the air. In fact, the web listenership is a small fraction of the FM audience. In the case of Blue Lake (not a good example, but as a case) the web stream is limited to 70 users at one time and has never been maxed out, while the FM audience numbers in the thousands at any given moment.

[JSngry]

So let's see...funding gets to be a bigger bitch every year, so you turn to formats more likely to raise local revenue, then you get your balls busted about what you do to keep the shit going. Is that about right?

Tell you what - why doesn't the NEA quit bitching & put some buckage into NPR to underwrite the type of programming they'd like to see? Would that be illegal or something?

[ghost of miles]

I don't think that any of NPR's funding actually comes from the NEA--doesn't all of the government funding come through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Part of the fault does lie with Congress (although this will change with the new one--Democrats are unanimous in their support of public broadcasting, and about a third of the Republicans are... so we're hoping we won't be under the budget axe for the next two years). But NPR was headed in this direction anyway. I see nothing wrong with the "professionalization" of public radio--we should have always aspired to that--but I do think the cultural mission, as outlined in the original CPB manifesto that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, has been betrayed to some extent. (How on earth is wall-to-wall, non-stop news & talk "preserving the cultural heritage of America"?) And yes, there is some politicking going on in the current efforts by some to steer NPR back towards cultural programming--but it's really beside the point. I'm just grateful that my station, like Lazaro's, is in the classical/jazz/news format. Sure, some folks want more of each and less of the others, but generally there's something for everyone.

The "digital" angle--well, are we going to pony up for podcasting fees? Strictly observe RIAA rules? Do that and you're severely limiting the kinds of programming you're going to be able to offer. Internet listening will continue to grow (perhaps especially among frustrated jazz fans who can no longer tune in for local shows), but Lazaro's right, and it's going to be a loooooong time before it approaches anything like the terrestrial audiences.

[JSngry]

I don't think that any of NPR's funding actually comes from the NEA--doesn't all of the government funding come through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Exactly right. But if the NEA has a beef, what's to allow them from ponying up some bread to create programming that addresses their concerns? Is that not allowed?

[Lazaro Vega]

Sounds good to me Jim.

[WD45]

I don't think that any of NPR's funding actually comes from the NEA--doesn't all of the government funding come through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Exactly right. But if the NEA has a beef, what's to allow them from ponying up some bread to create programming that addresses their concerns? Is that not allowed?

I don't think that the NEA has the cash to spare.

The feeling I get is that the NEA is saying, "Hey, we are keeping it real. You are selling out. WTF?"

[WD45]

Futhermore, I don't think programming is the issue. There is enough classical music and cultural programming to run four or five simultaneous nationwide services. Having fresh programming created by the NEA wouldn't do any good.

There was a large study recently completed that refutes the notion that news=good audience levels / classical=bad audience levels. There are both stations doing good and bad with both formats in similar circumstances. To me, the biggest crime is switching formats before considering other things that may detract from a station's performance.

[Ken Dryden]

With declining numbers of public radio stations offering NPR's classical programming, what are they supposed to do, flush additional money away? NPR has dropped lots of programs in the past, including Afro-Pop Worldwide, Heat with John Hockenberry and various jazz programs (Jazz Alive!, American Jazz Radio Festival, Wynton Marsalis Making the Music--though some of these may have lost funding to keep running). Performance Today will be moving to another network, while if there is so much demand for additional syndicated classical programs, I'm sure that some organization can raise the funds to produce it.

NPR, like individual public radio stations, can hardly stand still or run up deficits and remain in existence.

Why have local stations dropped classical music programming? The aging (50+) of the audience, lack of financial support, lack of underwriting support, etc., are all likely factors. We finally dropped the Metropolitan Opera (again) and our station's audience doubled within the first six weeks, not to mention opening times to sell underwriting and pitch during membership drives. Most stations don't have huge endowments (we don't have one at all) so they live from year to year.

This is another case of whining about something without bothering to investigate the factors that brought about the decision.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ken Dryden