The News Cycle and Mutual Destruction

The News Cycle Fuels Funding 

In fundraising circles we often discuss the value of the news cycle and the ability to raise funds from listeners. During presidential campaign the public radio audience swells and membership dollars increase.  For public radio's core audience, the news from NPR, PRX,  PRI and APM offer a sanctuary of thought provoking and rational content.

It looks as if the news cycle may not take its usual post election dip. That should be a happy thing for public broadcasting. Then again, maybe not.

 As someone who lived through the Cold War and the threat of the Nuclear Holocaust, Donald Trump's tweets about the nuclear arsenal are not going down well. The need to be informed from a reliable news source will become more important.

Fake News Ups the Ante

Add to the mix the proliferation of fake news. A news story from a fake new site heightened tensions between Pakistan and Israel.  According to an article published by Huffington Post with sources included in the New York Times "Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, wrote a frightening Twitter post in response to a fake news article stating that Israel would attack Pakistan with nuclear weapons." Asif's comments were in response to a fake story posted by awdnews.com quoting the Israeli Defense Minister that "If Pakistan send ground troops into Syria on any pretext, we will destroy this country with a nuclear attack." 

We are are closer to the brink than most people realize. According the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, we are three minutes to midnight, a global catastrophe. In 2012 we were five minutes to midnight.

Public Media will have plenty to report on and a steady, measured and fair treatment of the issues will be greatly appreciated by our core audience. By focusing on the core audience and their values the growth potential will continue to increase.

Duck and Cover

I'm part of that core, and I remember the drills at school, "Duck and Cover," and being reassured that we would be okay if the Menominee River Valley took a direct hit. Then later seeing the civil defense brochure about the circles of destruction and understanding at age nine that we were too close to the epicenter to survive, and understanding that if we did survive, we would likely die from the burns or radiation poisoning.

The theory behind the policy of mutual destruction was that nobody would be foolish enough to push the button. I wasn't reassured then. I am even less assured now. Public Media has a part in all this. No matter the platform, we must continue to meet the expectations of our audience. Public Radio news has grown up to be trusted news source among its audience. When we first started we considered to be boutique in nature...an alternate news source. There's no going back now.

This American Life / PRI Part Ways

Public Radio International (PRI) announced yesterday that it will end distribution of This American Life (TAL). According to the article in Variety, TAL has 2.2 million listeners and calls the weekly program one of PRI's most popular.

Details of why the show is being dropped are sketchy. PRI Executive Julia Yager states, “During our most recent negotiation, it became clear that our organizations’ expectations regarding our futures were different.” 

Yager said This American Life will continue to be distributed to Public Radio. Three possible sources, PRX, NPR and APM have not commented yet.

Public Radio Exchange Pulls in Major Grants

PRX Raises $2.7 Million from Corporation for Public Broadcasting, MacArthur Foundation, and Ford Foundation

The grants include funding from:

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting - $1.5million
• The Ford Foundation - $900k
• The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation - $300k

When I was PD and Director of Radio at CPBN, the content from PRX allowed us to present voices and ideas not necessarily available through NPR, PRI and APM.

It helped broaden the context of the issues and ideas that affected the communities we served. It was also a way for our producers to get added exposure for the work they were producing.

Colorado Republican Wants to Cut CPB

Colorado Representative Republican Doug Lambron says he is introducing legislation that would eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Details are in an article in The Colorado Independent. Rep Lambron says the country no longer needs this choice in a time when 500 channels are available through cable and other pay-for-use services like the internet. Pam Osborn, spokesperson for Colorado Public Broadcasting said in the article that 18% of the television audience still gets their TV "free" over the air. Many of them cannot afford $100 a month for cable or internet phone service. 

Can PBS and NPR be Self-Sustaining?

Lambron also said that NPR and PBS will survive without CPB. That day may be coming for NPR with direct funding from on-line and internet radio users. But, NPR is not anywhere near the critical mass needed to sustain itself. Most of its funding comes from member stations. Stations get some funding from CPB, some funding from contributors and some funding from underwriters. The article ignores other program suppliers like Public Radio International, American Public Media, WFMT and the Public Radio Exchange. PBS does not directly create any programming.

Public Broadcasting is Driven by Memberships

Membership contributions for public radio are driven by programming. Listeners send money to public radio when they rely on its service and consider it important in their lives. According to research from ARA (Audience 98), public service and public support are linked so tightly that listener support can be used as a proxy for the public service that causes it. Public support, like public service, is the product of two factors: the value listeners place on the programming, and the amount of listening done to the programming.

We found at the station I worked for the listeners who valued the station most (core listeners) were most likely to support us. Typically the core tuned in about ten times a week for a total of about 10 hours a week. On-line usage does not come anywhere close to that threshold, at least not yet.

Not a New Idea

This is not the first time cuts have been proposed. The Reagan administration actually cut funding in the 80's with a rescission of at least 50%. The recession came as the result of a flap over program content on PBS. The Reagan Administration wanted more control over the content.  Newt Gingrich later proposed "The Glide Path to Zero" where all funding was to be cut for public broadcasting. There have been other proposals. The most recent proposal came from the Bush Administration. Some states strapped for cash are proposing cuts. The stations hurt most by these cuts are the smaller stations, usually in rural areas.

A Change is Coming

The funding equation will change as listeners and viewers change how they acquire their content. According to what I’ve been reading, that change is coming in this decade. What that means for local affiliates is not clear. If NPR does find itself in the position where it can cut the local affiliates loose, the affiliates will have a difficult time supporting their coverage of local and regional issues. Most public radio listeners today come to their stations looking first for the national programming. Without those listeners, stations will find sustainability to be a problem. Funding local news on public radio will be difficult. In this case, new alliances and new funding models will need to be found in order for public radio and television to continue provide in-depth news and information programming.

UA-12112039-1