Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NPR Board Member Admits It Serves 'Liberal, Highly Educated Elite,' Wonders How to.....
Newsbusters ^

Posted on 03/11/2011 12:18:23 PM PST by Sub-Driver

NPR Board Member Admits It Serves 'Liberal, Highly Educated Elite,' Wonders How to Justify Public Funding in Light of This By Lachlan Markay Created 03/11/2011 - 1:31pm

By Lachlan Markay | March 11, 2011 | 13:31

At least one National Public Radio board member has a firm grasp on arguments against the organization receiving federal funding. Criticisms of NPR "do have some legitimacy," she noted, and "we must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism."

Sue Schardt, director of the Association of Independents in Radio and a member of NPR's board, noted during the board's Feburary 25 "public comment" period that "we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

As a consequence, Schardt added, while the journalism NPR produces may be of high quality, the organization really only serves, by her telling, 11 percent of the United States. In light of that fact, she added, "we need to carefully consider whether we warrant public funding and, if so, what the rationale would be."

The following is partial transcript of Schardt's comment, posted at Current.org:

After working in many parts of public radio — both deep inside it and now with one foot inside and one foot outside — I believe there's an elephant in the room. There is something that I'm very conscious of as we consider this crisis that I'd like to speak to.

We have built an extraordinary franchise. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because we used a very specific methodology to cultivate and build an audience. For years, in boardrooms, at conferences, with funders, we have talked about our highly educated, influential audience. We pursued David Giovannoni's methodologies. We all participated. It was his research, his undaunted, clear strategy that we pursued to build the successful news journalism franchise we have today.

What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. "Super-serve the core" — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone's intention to exclude anyone.

But we have to accept — unapologetically — that this is the franchise we've built.

We have to look at this because the criticisms that are coming at us — whether they're couched in other things — do have some legitimacy. We must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism. Before we can set a path, we have to own this.

One choice, at this transformational moment, is to say, "We are satisfied with what we are doing. We — in radio — are providing 11 percent of America with an extraordinary service." If this is our choice, we need to carefully consider whether we warrant public funding and, if so, what the rationale would be.

Another choice is to say, "We have cultivated and built an extraordinary infrastructure of interconnected stations that's now adopting networked digital technologies. More important, we have created a culture of human beings who — in this building, at stations, and in my constituency of hundreds of producers — are fluent in a particular craft rooted in an idealism of service. Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good. Ours is a human endeavor. That is what differentiates us. This is what is at stake. This is what we must preserve."

I believe we need to say, in this moment, "You're right. We are not satisfied, either. Now that we have achieved this huge success over a 30-year incubation period, we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public." We set our numbers.

No NPR detractor has thus far provided a case this compelling - due both to the force of its arguments and the significance of the person offering them - for a reexamination of the organization's federal funding. Hopefully its backers take it to heart.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: indoctrinated; lesbianlefties; marxistpunks; noteducated; npr; publicradio

1 posted on 03/11/2011 12:18:30 PM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Petard ready?

Aye, Aye!

Is it your own petard?

Aye, Aye!

Hoist Away!

2 posted on 03/11/2011 12:21:43 PM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Nope, times up. Not another dime from taxpayers!!


3 posted on 03/11/2011 12:24:08 PM PST by gcraig (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bottom Line: I, a staunch conservative, am forced through my tax dollars to support NPR which at it’s highest levels hates me and ridicules me and my beliefs. There is NO justification for forcing me to support them. They are a purely liberal Democratic news mongering machine. They can find their own funding, let the free markets prevail.


4 posted on 03/11/2011 12:26:33 PM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public." We set our numbers.

Wonderful! In the mean time, quit sucking off the public trough and pay for yourself.

5 posted on 03/11/2011 12:26:55 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good.

Take a long walk off a short pier, commie! -And do off of the public dole!

6 posted on 03/11/2011 12:27:35 PM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"... "we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

Translation: We've been taking money out of the pockets of working men and women in order to subsidize radio that caters to wealthy liberals and denegrates the very taxpayers who are footing the bill.

7 posted on 03/11/2011 12:30:12 PM PST by In Maryland ("Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day ..." - Caroline Baum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This is a reasonably objective analysis.

I listen to NPR, or I should say, my local NPR station, mostly because I enjoy the 10 hours of blues programming per week. I listen to some of their other talk and music programming as well, but I do not support their operation financially. I feel that the political bias of the station (e.g Diane Rehm, Terry Gross, etc) is opposite to my own, and there are no counterbalancing conservative programs, and that as long as this continues to be the case they will have to obtain their financial support from the minority portion of the population that shares their liberal views. I explained my reasons to the station manager who actually said he understood my rationale.

Supporting NPR personally is a personal choice. But the argument is identical - the government should not confiscate money from everyone to advance the political agenda of one particular group. It may not be “establishing a religion” but to my mind it’s not much different.


8 posted on 03/11/2011 12:31:11 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Individuals whose arrogance at every step is to define the greater good.

Thinking themselves wise, they became [the ultimate] fools.

9 posted on 03/11/2011 12:31:23 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. "Super-serve the core" — that was the mantra, for many, many years

These are the people who imagine themselves to be speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

Comforting the comfortable is more like it.

10 posted on 03/11/2011 12:32:35 PM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tioga

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” - Thomas Jefferson


11 posted on 03/11/2011 12:34:14 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I love the implication that highly educated=liberal. Conservative means uneducated rube. I may be wrong but I think there are some highly educated conservatives out there. I have donated to NPR because I like their classical music. They will get no more money from me.


12 posted on 03/11/2011 12:38:20 PM PST by k omalley (Caro Enim Mea, Vere est Cibus, et Sanguis Meus, Vere est Potus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Imagine if their target audience had instead been “highly educated, conservative, traditional American families”. They would have nurtured five times the audience they have now. Instead, they went after an audience of America-hating, masturbating, liberal “intellectuals” like themselves. NPR screwed up, big time. So sad, too bad... Defund it immediately.


13 posted on 03/11/2011 12:38:45 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tioga

Don’t forget that they think you’re STOOPID, too.


14 posted on 03/11/2011 12:40:19 PM PST by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Clearly NPR and PBS must build more diversity into their programming. Since they don’t especially like to employ black folks maybe they could hire Eminem to do a Friday night hip-hop show to appeal to the urban yoot demographic.


15 posted on 03/11/2011 12:41:31 PM PST by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"highly educated"
16 posted on 03/11/2011 12:46:32 PM PST by crosshairs (Appeasement is surrender in slow motion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

Utter, unadulterated horse hockey. NPR knew EXACTLY what audience it was trying to attract.

Notice, however, that book smarts does not equal either street smarts or common sense.

17 posted on 03/11/2011 12:49:48 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("It's hard to take the president seriously." - Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Well, she's actually right about a few things.

First, she's right about their core audience. No denying it.

Second, she's right about the very high quality of the product they produce. It is extraordinarily well done -- their stuff tends to be thoughtful, well researched, and intellectually deep.

Third, she's right about the influence of what they have built.

I think she glosses over the liberal tilt that inevitably developed as they built their "11 percent" audience; many of NPR's listeners are probably so comfortable with that tilt that they don't even notice it.

But I also think that much of the funding that Congress now provides, would be replaced by their 11% audience -- it would go on, just in a different form.

To be honest, I think that conservatives have seriously missed the boat where that sort of forum and format is concerned. Conservative talk radio is a very poor substitute for the sort of discussion and information that NPR provides on the left.

Conservatives desperately need the sort of adult discussion and debate that talk radio is unable to (or at least, does not) provide.

For example, Limbaugh is a smart guy, but he's usually too shallow to be useful, and often incorrect on details. And he loves the vibrations of his voice on his bionic ear.

It would be physically impossible for him to get to the level of depth that NPR can, because they talk to all sorts of people who are well-versed in a topic, whereas Limbaugh is only one guy who hasn't got the time to be deeply informed on anything. (And don't get me started on Hannity.)

18 posted on 03/11/2011 12:51:15 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“Serves ‘Liberal, Highly Educated Elite,’”

Since NPR is apparently only for DC, NY, LA, SF, Austin, and Chapel Hill, at least cut the funding that provides NPR programming everywhere else in the US.


19 posted on 03/11/2011 12:53:36 PM PST by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
NPR Board Member Admits It Serves 'Liberal, Highly Credentialed Elite,

Credenitaled, not educated. BIG difference.
20 posted on 03/11/2011 12:55:42 PM PST by kb2614 (Cheer up, for the worst is yet to come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
Not so stupid I won't donate to James O'Keefe's website to thank him for the exposé.....Project Veritas...NOT NPR.
21 posted on 03/11/2011 12:58:23 PM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Imagine if their target audience had instead been “highly educated, conservative, traditional American families”. They would have nurtured five times the audience they have now. Instead, they went after an audience of America-hating, masturbating, liberal “intellectuals” like themselves. NPR screwed up, big time. So sad, too bad...

Always so easy to put the blame on others, isn't it? Never the fault of conservatives who never see the train until it hits them.

Leaving aside the whole government funding thing, it was a resource that conservatives could have developed and used to great effect: think of Buckley's old Firing Line TV show, which was excellent and widely watched -- it's no accident that the intellectual respectability of conservatism reached its pinnacle at the same time that show was on PBS. People could actually hear the arguments for conservatism for themselves, and see them tested in actual debate.

Defund it immediately.

Defund it, sure ... but what is now NPR, will stick around in some form because the 11% audience has big money and likes it enough to pony up the cash in one way or another. Lots of big foundations would keep it going.

22 posted on 03/11/2011 12:59:44 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tioga
You're in good company with your opinion: To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. ~ Thomas Jefferson
23 posted on 03/11/2011 1:01:26 PM PST by Spartan79 ("We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather-bed." ~ Ths. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tioga

I hear ya! it’s money VERY well spent.


24 posted on 03/11/2011 1:04:00 PM PST by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; sickoflibs; Liz; pissant; DakotaRed; Cobra64; BenKenobi; cripplecreek; Tublecane; ...
(NPR): "we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

Yep, all those folks struggling to pay the mortgage, get braces for the kids and go to a movie once a month must be happy seeing these people get their tax dollars...

25 posted on 03/11/2011 1:06:44 PM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - It's only uncivil when someone on the right does it.- Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

wonder if someone could post a mother pig (government) with the little sucklings NPR PBS on the teats of government. keep in the little piggies have some fancy dresses on and have whatever uppity purse the “elites” think is the latest thing.

The elites want PBS and NPR - pay for it themselves. There is no governmental funding for Conservative Radio - advertisers pay for the AM Stations to exist.


26 posted on 03/11/2011 1:20:10 PM PST by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Its an almost perfect, ‘tax the poor to feed the rich’ scam.


27 posted on 03/11/2011 1:21:09 PM PST by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“Liberal, Who Believe They are Highly Educated Elite,”


28 posted on 03/11/2011 1:32:34 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

Unwittingly?

I thought these people were smart.

29 posted on 03/11/2011 1:50:01 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k omalley
I have donated to NPR because I like their classical music.

Get Sirius.

No commercials or fundraisers.

30 posted on 03/11/2011 1:53:45 PM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So let the elites support it.


31 posted on 03/11/2011 2:18:18 PM PST by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good.

The path to 100,000,000 murders last century was paved with identical intentions, comrade.

32 posted on 03/11/2011 2:22:46 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Defund it, sure ... but what is now NPR, will stick around in some form because the 11% audience has big money and likes it enough to pony up the cash in one way or another. Lots of big foundations would keep it going.

That's wonderful. I wish them well (relatively.)

Unlike leftists, I have zero interest in silencing opposing viewpoints. I only object to being forced to fund them.

I agree that conservatives need a more intellectual forum than talk radio and the theater on FoxNews. Mark Steyn could probably pull something together that discussed music, politics, events, etc. with a conservative bent.

The problem would be ratings, just like it is for liberals. There's no money-making market for deep thoughts on either side of the aisle.

People like sex and explosions.

33 posted on 03/11/2011 2:31:22 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite.”

What!?!? Responsible, Common Sense, Hard Working not part of the description of their audience? I’m shocked! I’ve been duped! Damn that Bush! /s


34 posted on 03/11/2011 2:39:22 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
The problem would be ratings, just like it is for liberals. There's no money-making market for deep thoughts on either side of the aisle.

Well, yes and no. According to Wiki, most of their funding does not come from the federal government.

Depending on how you want to look at it, about 12% overall of NPR's budget comes in the form of federal grants, to member stations and NPR itself. About 15% comes from universities, and the rest comes from pledge drives and corporate donations.

IOW, most of their money comes from subscribers and donors: clearly it is capable of surviving on its own. Loss of federal dollars may slighly reduce NPR's scope, but it will still have most of its financial base.

Conservatives could build a similar base ... or, they could push their way into the existing NPR structure. But I think conservatives are too politically stupid to do either. The evidence suggests that we tend to ignore the effects of liberal politics until they bite us in the ass.

35 posted on 03/11/2011 2:42:47 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 240B
Its an almost perfect, ‘tax the poor to feed the rich’ scam.

It's the same trick elites use to fund Arts Museums ( i.e. private clubs for the liberal wives of wealthy men) - on taxpayer dimes - and yeah, they do good, but it's mostly 'good' for other rich educated liberal elites.

I'm surprised the NPR woman was so upfront about it...

36 posted on 03/11/2011 2:43:19 PM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - It's only uncivil when someone on the right does it.- Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Defund it, sure ... but what is now NPR, will stick around in some form because the 11% audience has big money and likes it enough to pony up the cash in one way or another. Lots of big foundations would keep it going.

Fine by me - - at least taxpayers would not be forced to participate in the NPR circle jerk.

Anyway, it's not a zero-sum calculation. Whatever money the liberal elitist NPR audience and those "big foundations" dump down the NPR toilet is less money they will have for dumping into Democrat campaign coffers. Win-win for decent Americans.

37 posted on 03/11/2011 3:00:35 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
More than that, I have seen cities levy a ‘tax’ to build a stadium with reserved ‘private’ box seats.

That is, they would levy the whole city to pay to build some politician or CEO or whatever a box seat. Crazy.

If I can't go in there like anyone else and watch the game, then it is NOT PUBLIC. I'm not going to pay for it. Screw that!

It is the typical pattern. But, I think the Liberals have finally overreached by forcing Obama on us. Now the walls are tumbling down from all sides and they cannot believe or accept it. This is just not the way ‘their world’ is supposed to work. Stupid peasants!

Just like almost all tyrants, they forgot...they just stopped even a pretense of hiding their greed and contempt for the masses. Any chapter in any history book (a book written several year ago before history itself got confiscated) will dictate the same cycle.

38 posted on 03/11/2011 3:08:45 PM PST by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

“Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good. Ours is a human endeavor.”

I’m from NPR and I intend to help you is almost as scary as “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”


39 posted on 03/11/2011 3:18:39 PM PST by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 240B
The part of the ‘stadium scam’ most offensive to me is the part where taxpayers pay for 99% of the stadium - and some liberal elite bigwig comes in - hands over a measly 1% in a big showy check - and gets to name the stadium...and get his picture in the paper.
40 posted on 03/11/2011 3:19:13 PM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - It's only uncivil when someone on the right does it.- Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

Too bad our product is broadcast to The Great Unwashed.

41 posted on 03/11/2011 3:52:07 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
...Limbaugh is a smart guy, but he's usually too shallow to be useful, and often incorrect on details.

Limbaugh is basically uneducated in political science. Have any of you ever heard him--I quit listening to that conceited, pompous ass a long time ago--quote or refer to the deep political thinkers such J. S. Mill, Locke, etc.? I would bet not, mainly because he has no grounding in their writings.

He thinks that his analyses are sufficient.

42 posted on 03/11/2011 4:03:47 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
"we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite."

More accurately, that would be "predominately white, liberal, highly educated and", in your own minds, "elite".

"Elite", at least, compared to a cow patty.

People who consider themselves "elite" are invariably consumate bores.

43 posted on 03/11/2011 4:38:10 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
Limbaugh is basically uneducated in political science

Excuse me? Where do you get off?

44 posted on 03/11/2011 6:18:07 PM PST by jimfree (In 2012 Sarah Palin will continue to have more relevant quality executive experience than B. Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jimfree

Oh, yes. Rush doesn’t have an Ivy degree. I have three non-Ivy degrees. He quotes the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. How unlearned is that!


45 posted on 03/11/2011 6:21:14 PM PST by jimfree (In 2012 Sarah Palin will continue to have more relevant quality executive experience than B. Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

We agree


46 posted on 03/12/2011 7:10:20 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson