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.
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.
I hear ya! it’s money VERY well spent.
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...
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.
Its an almost perfect, ‘tax the poor to feed the rich’ scam.
“Liberal, Who Believe They are Highly Educated Elite,”
Unwittingly?
I thought these people were smart.
Get Sirius.
No commercials or fundraisers.
So let the elites support it.
The path to 100,000,000 murders last century was paved with identical intentions, comrade.
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.
“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
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.
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...
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.
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.
“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”
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.