Gary Knell
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-07/gary-knell
NPR recently announced a downturn in corporate sponsorship. The falloff in revenue has led to speculation about cuts in staff and programing. Gary Knell is NPR's president and CEO. He succeeded Vivian Schiller, who was ousted after the release of a tape in which an NPR executive disparaged conservatives and in the wake of firing Juan Williams. These incidents nearly cost public broadcasting its federal funding. Knell joins Diane to discuss NPR's future as it faces many challenges, including financing, competition for audience and changing technology.
Guests
Gary Knell
president and CEO, NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Having lost my job,and being forced into retirement,I listen to the Diane Rehm show every day now.I admire Diane`s willingness to challenge all the liars. Keep up the great work. I`ve learned more in 1 hour from this show,than all others combined.And for that I sincerely say THANK YOU !
"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
NPR desperately needs to come clean on it's liberal bias, it is likely that after all these years like so many others in main stream media outlets they have become incapable of even recognizing what liberal bias is. If a lie is told often enough for long enough it becomes the truth and arrogance becomes the body guard of the lie..
Charges of liberal bias are bogus. In every study, NPR is shown to be the most factual & nonpartisan news source. That is a FACT. Only those brainwashed by the rightwing arm of the Republican party known as FOX would charge otherwise. FOX not only uses propaganda to influence our politics but it actually spends big money supporting political causes & candidates. That is DIRECT participation in the political process & is about as blatently biased as you can get!
Ask NPR employees if there is bias at NPR, they would have us believe they are indeed liberal but are able to keep their personal feelings out of it, believe that and I have some sub prime loans to sell you! I assume you frequent the D.R. show, are you telling me the typical 3 to 1 liberal discussion panels including the host have gone unnoticed, or that the "conservative" voice is usually from the New York Times or the Washington Posts which are widely discredited as liberally biased organizations?
“If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd.”
Those are the words of Bob Garfield in the aftermath of the conservative “citizen journalist” sting against NPR, which caught on camera a now former fund raising executive smearing the entire Tea Party movement as racist and stupid.
BROOKE GLADSTONE, ‘ON THE MEDIA’ CO-HOST, NPR: About 25 years ago, I was asked to do a piece, “Is NPR Biased to the Left?” And I couldn’t find a metric to apply to the question in order to answer it.
Ira GLASS: "Journalism in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole. Sure. But that doesn’t change what is going out over the air, and I feel like let’s measure the product."
Here's a simple question for Arkus. If NPR is liberally biased in your view, please name the news media organizations you consider to be fair and straight down the middle.
And while I'm logged in, let me counter your point that most of Diane's conservative guests are from the NYT or WaPo. My observation is that they're very often from the Weekly Standard, the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation - and I can't help noticing that they all seem very pleased to participate on her show and clearly hold Diane in very high esteem.
Byrwec Ellison wrote: "name the news media organizations you consider to be fair and straight down the middle."
Good question! answer none, that being said I do prefer if a news organization is open about their leanings instead of pretending otherwise and they do exist. It's the deliberate deception or more accurately the denial I have a problem with.
Byrwec Ellison wrote:" let me counter your point that most of Diane's conservative guests are from the NYT or WaPo. My observation is that they're very often from the Weekly Standard, the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation"
Your right, the conservative guests you mention have been on the show many times. This is how the bias works. If it's the Friday domestic news round up that's when you can expect to see a panel consisting of the milquetoast conservative I mention or one from a similar but decidedly liberal news source, coupled with an outright liberal and a center left commentator and of course the very liberal Diane who has never met a big government liberal welfare program she does not like, if you can name one I'd like to hear it. As far as obvious well known conservatives that you mention, they are always outnumbered in the ratio I mention on specific politically charged topics Monday through Thursday broadcasts. If we are comparing shows that feature guest commentators and are looking for a similarly biased but with a conservative perspective you can find it on Fox News prime time, but the bias is not denied nor tax payer funded. No matter how minuscule some feel the federal funds might be to the overall NPR budget, it's just not right for tax payer funds to go to a politically biased media organization.
continued
A show host or producer has unlimited opportunities to insert not easily detectable biases into broadcasts. What questions are asked or not asked, shaping questions so that they produce a desired response, asking certain people questions knowing their stance in advance, what topics are covered and not covered, the extent of coverage or lack of coverage on a given topic etc. etc. Finding hard evidence of bias in something as ambiguous as news coverage is not an easy task especially when it's denied. There are as many excuses to cover up or explain away bias as there are ways to insert it. If you listen to a media source long enough you instinctively know what to expect and at that point covert biases become clear. Of course you must have a comprehensive understanding of the issues being discussed, ignored or reported on to precisely identify what is missing or what has been embellished.
George W.Bush, was a governor,and businessman,and came from a wealthy privileged family.
Mitt Romney,was a governor,and businessman,and came from a wealthy privileged family.
Only a tiny number of media interviewers even notice.Fewer dare ask any questions.Same ol,same ol to me,but "Fair and Balanced" paints this as brand new.A revelation.Just like 'Reaganomics','Trickle Down','Supply Side'.'Austerity',and 'Job Creator' economics are new and different,only to be the same Plutocrat economics.
Blah......blah.......blah......
So many comments with so little content, even before the actual broadcast.
It's a natural fact of life that the more educated a person is, the more "liberal" the person becomes. Journalists (not "newsertainers") are educated and trained to follow specific precepts in finding and reporting only the truth. The Faux News program The Five demonstrated this fact brilliantly on Tuesday when their panel collectively reported that teachers only work a few hours a day, have 5 months off, and earn 90 to 100K a year and have extravagant pensions that are far higher than their private sector counterparts. Talk about UNINFORMED and uneducated!!
Anyone who knows teachers knows they are among the lowest paid professionals in the US, and work many, many hours especially in at-risk schools.
Diane's show is a glowing example of the best in true journalism and always presents balanced reporting.
soundpam wrote:
"Charges of liberal bias are bogus. In every study, NPR is shown to be the most factual & nonpartisan news source. That is a FACT. "
Really? Then you shouldn't have a problem producing ONE should you? Hint: "studies" from "Think Progress" or "Daily Kos" do not count.
soundpam also wrote:
"FOX not only uses propaganda to influence our politics but it actually spends big money supporting political causes & candidates. "
Produce ONE SHRED of evidence for that.
LibVet wrote:
"So many comments with so little content, ... it's a natural fact of life that the more educated a person is, the more "liberal" the person becomes."
Thanks for that bit of "content" LibVet! Pot, meet Kettle. What exactly is a "natural fact of life" anyway? Is it a "feeling" you have that that is the way things are?
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"it's just not right for tax payer funds to go to a politically biased media organization."
I'm dismayed and disgusted by this canard continually repeated by "conservative" commenters (What is it that you're trying to conserve again?) who expect to be taken seriously. I'm just wondering whether you harbor similar reservations about allowing other publicly-owned resources to be used up/despoiled/sold off cheaply to Big Money, or whether your concern begins and ends with perceived liberal bias in public radio? For instance, the Forest Service has been subsidizing logging for decades, receiving royalty payments from lumber companies that don't even cover the cost of building roads for them. Mining royalties have also been kept scandalously scanty, thanks to a formidable lobby.
Why stop at public broadcasting? Don't forget, the electromagnetic spectra theoretically belong to all the people, but are licensed to broadcasters -- and have also been sold to telecommunications companies. Broadcasters are supposed to demonstrably operate for the benefit of the public, and until the Fairness Doctrine was repealed during conservative icon's Ronald Reagan's administration, broadcast outlets were obliged to balance the airing of politically-relevant viewpoints.
(continued) I would like to remind you that the way our electoral system works is that legislators are forced to spend between a third and half of their time begging for money, largely to pay for advertising on THE PEOPLE'S AIRWAVES, from tycoons and businesses that have it to spare. Big Business has found that there is no better return on investment than funding political campaigns. In this way, politicians promise to deliver things that don't belong to them, like tax revenues, public resources and our civil rights, to entities that would repurpose them for private profit. Now, a partisan Supreme Court has legalized bribery in the Citizens United case, ruling that corporations are people, so money is speech. Does that anger you too, or is it only the access to airwaves of people you disagree with that drives you mad?
NPR isn't often everything I would like for it to be, but it would be unreasonable to expect that. Despite the dangers of attempting to report and comment in a deliberately evenhanded manner during a historical trend of steadily increasing fascism, I still believe in the possibility, promise and power of public radio.
As a conservative, I find NPR is be "fair and balanced" and quite informative. Most shows, DR included, always include those from both sides.
My tax dollars have been spent for more useless things!
LibVet wrote: "It's a natural fact of life that the more educated a person is, the more "liberal" the person becomes."
Wow, how arrogant, if you believe that then indeed you are capable of extreme bias. What would stop you if you truly believe you are intellectually superior.
I live in an Ohio city. We don`t have even 1 liberal radio station,NOT ONE !!! NPR is a blessing to all those millions of people who still don`t have access to web broadcast radio. NPR offers a look at both sides.
.
If you read the comment boards for NPR programs, you alternately see complaints of either a conservative bias in reporting or a liberal bias. Such contradictory claims tells me that you guys are hitting it just right. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
ecgberht, you really didn't tune into Fox news (sic) for the last three days up to the Wisconsin recall election?
It was nothing but a fugging pep rally. I'd call it pathetic, but it's lost the power to make anyone worry about their reputation for being "fair and balanced". That ship has sunk long ago.
The talk about cost cutting makes me wonder how Mr. Knell justifies his million-dollar plus salary - I'd like to hear his response.
I have a question and a comment for Mr. Knell.
My comment is that when traveling across the country even in very rural areas I have been able to get at least one NPR station. In the vast wasteland of commercial radio, and nothing against country western or religious stations, there is not much out there.
Since Tomlinson (left in the early 2000's) who skewed NPR to be more conservative, is NPR still under right wing attacks for being liberal, which in my mind is that there is not enough deference is given to business concerns and social conservatives?
All you have to do is be informed and watch FAUX to see how biased it is. What a joke. FAUX is for one thing, the pro corporate business community, what is good for corporate America is good for all America.
WHAT IS "CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP"? WILL A DECLINE IN CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP LEAD TO A MORE LIBERAL OR A LESS LIBERAL NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO? WHAT DOES THE TERM "LIBERAL" MEAN? IS NPR A LIBERAL MEDIA? (part one)
Presumably "corporate sponsorship" refers to sponsorship from the private sector by corporate entities such as businesses, unions, institutes, and charities [not the overall "corporate" body of NPR members, nor government funding]. NPR must decide how to respond to the current budget decrease. If cuts become inevitable, then NPR may ask to what degree political bias may or may not be causative to the budget decrease. NPR may ask to what degree such criticism is legitimate. NPR may decide to adjust programming accordingly to achieve a better balance, to maintain it's current balance, or even to become more extreme.
IMHO the current decrease in corporate sponsorship may reflect that it is a presidential election year, that corporate sponsorship is temporarily being redirected to political advertising (perhaps to a much greater level than during prior presidential campaigns, thanks to the recent liberalization of election campaign funding rules). If so, then will funding sources restore to NPR, or remain at lower levels as corporate sponsors seek to replenish campaign war chests for future elections including the bi-annual congressional elections?
StLouis, I respectfully disagree about "both sides are complaining so it must be going down the middle".
When's the last time the right stopped screeching about any non-propaganda media or organization being too liberally biased?
Trick question, except for maybe a few months after 9/11, when everyone lined up behind George W. Bush (but before the admin decided Iraq was the problem).
The right never stops complaining about balance. The complaining is the end to itself, rather than wanting to make anything better. Nothing anyone does for them is enough.
And the "both sides complain" is a false comparison which put-upon editors and other media upper-ups have been suckers for for decades.
(part two)
The term "liberal" has come to mean "left-wing", just as the term "conservative" has come to mean "right-wing". This reality of language abuse goes to the dumbing-down and splitting of our society. That split appears to be growing into a severe schism boding ill for the future.
There is a great variety of influences from the left and the right within NPR and other public media venues such as PBS. This is not true in all areas of presentation, but, it is true in many, and private media reflects similar influences and therefore similar strengths and weaknesses in biases.
No society has achieved media perfection; our society is way ahead of most, and the existing pluralism of media including NPR is vital.
Just as economies adjust to shocks, so too the media adjusts. The "Roaring Twenties" was an era blinded by hedonism leading into the Great Depression. There are similarities today and those similarities are reflected in the media. When "everyone" is drunk, drunk is normal....
Does the Ombudsman for NPR News accept examples of bias heard on the Diane Rehm show or is this considered an independent syndicated show outside his/her purview?
The Peterson Foundation is Knell's idea of every side "coming together" like they used to? The "social security is the problem and must be slashed yesterday for a slight issue which won't raise its head in thirty years" people is not a solution. It's the problem.
Please, can we have a second guest, one who's not inside the literal or figurative Beltway this hour?
The US government can waste $58 Billion tax dollars per year in "Foreign Aid" to countries who don't need it. Why can't the elected officials cut the Foreign Aid by 10% and route those dollars to NPR/PBS.
I always listen to NPR through the NPR app, or radioSURE windows app, even though I work from home. Why would I purchase a radio when I already have an iphone and computer that can get me the same content that can follow me around. I'm not sure I understand why the focus is on having listeners listen through local stations. I still listen to my local station, however, on my iphone or PC. It's just much easier.