Juan Williams and NPR: Does National Public Radio Take Taxpayer Dollars?

NPR analyst Juan Williams is shown in an undated photo.

/ AP Photo/SeniorNet

The firing of NPR contributor Juan Williams for comments about Muslims - he said among other things that he gets "nervous" when he sees Muslims on his airplane flights - has prompted Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin to call for NPR to be stripped of federal funding.

"At a time when our country is dangerously in debt and looking for areas of federal spending to cut, I think we've found a good candidate for defunding. National Public Radio is a public institution that directly or indirectly exists because the taxpayers fund it," Palin wrote.

But the outcry reflects something of a misunderstanding of just how "public" NPR really is. Let's start with the name: Though Palin refers to "National Public Radio," NPR no longer identifies itself that way.

"Our legal name remains National Public Radio, as it has been for more than 40 years, but our trademarked brand has long been NPR," it explains on its website. "Several months ago, we let staff and stations know that we were making a conscious effort to consistently refer to ourselves as NPR on-air and online."

And though NPR is widely seen as publicly funded, the majority of its funding does not come (even indirectly) from taxpayers. NPR doesn't receive direct federal funding for operations - the largest chunk of its money comes from program fees and station dues, as NPR's finances page lays out.

Juan Williams Fired by NPR Over Muslim Comments
Juan Williams: I Meant What I Said on O'Reilly
Juan Williams Firing Leads Palin, Huckabee to Call for Defunding NPR

NPR does end up with some federal funding in an indirect sense, though it only makes up between one and three percent of the group's budget on a yearly basis, according to NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, who discussed the matter in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today.

Here's how Schiller breaks it down: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which covers both radio and television, gets $90 million per year in federal funding that goes to member public radio stations, not NPR itself. (This would be your local NPR affiliate.) She said any money NPR gets from the CPB comes via grants it has to apply for, and those grants only make up a tiny percentage of the overall NPR budget, which Schiller puts at $160 million per year.

(Looking at CPB's financials - page 17 specifically -- it appears the group got a $422 million total allocation from the federal government in FY2010, of which roughly $93 million went to radio.)

"NPR gets no allocation from CPB," Schiller said. "Zero. We are a private 501(c)3. We've had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That's laughable."

There appears to be something of a hole in her argument, however: If the CPB sends most of its radio money to member stations, and the member stations pay dues to NPR, doesn't NPR still end up getting taxpayer money via member stations, in addition to the one to three percent it gets via grants?

Hotsheet contacted Anna Christopher, senior manager of media relations at NPR, to address that question. She acknowledged that "a proportion of every station's budget goes to pay NPR dues." That means, she said, that "there is an indirect amount coming in" via member station dues.

That amount doesn't appear to be huge, however: According to Christopher, roughly ten percent of member stations' budget comes from the federal government. Forty percent of NPR's budget, in turn, comes from station fees. So the percentage of NPR's budget that is made up of federal money coming via station fees would be relatively small.

Where does that leave NPR? If you add up the two indirect sources of federal money - grants through CPB and member station dues - taxpayer dollars still appear to add up to less than ten percent of its budget. And while that's not negligible, it's a lot less than many people seem to think.

Now, Palin and Huckabee could counter that they are including member stations when they discuss NPR. (Though it should be noted that member stations are separate entities that both produce their own programming and take if from other sources -- and they aren't the ones that fired Williams.) If you include member stations under the "NPR" umbrella, then the CPB allocation -- and, if you want to get into public television as well, CPB in general -- would be fair game.

All this talk of money brings us back to the man who kicked off the controversy in the first place -- Juan Williams. There's no need to send taxpayer dollars his way: In the wake of his being fired as an NPR contributor, Fox News today signed Williams to a new three-year contract worth nearly $2 million.

---

Brian Montopoli is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of his posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

[PoliticsMatters]

On the subject of federal funding for NPR, Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia's Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, recently said: "There are lots of funding sources for an organization as well-respected as National Public Radio. It's unfortunate that it has become sort of a political football. Eventually that football will get kicked entirely into private funding. It's a wedge issue that one party has sort of taken advantage of to talk about biases and yet most people find it a very informative source. It doesn't need a lot of public funding. There are stations that do, however, need public funding to survive. So after public radio is defunded, which I think will happen within years, then we will see probably a smaller number of National Public Radio outlets, but more on the Internet." (Gibson appeared on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism http://******/pm-gibson)

[TaddPeake]

Ten percent is a lot.

If a business was granted an extra 10 percent PLUS reduced or eliminated taxes -- such as a 501(c)3 enjoys -- but its competitors didn't, that would be a considerable competitive advantage.

[neopatetic]

@ TaddPeake:

Exactly right. I would go further. When CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper appeared on Fox News to discuss the communiqu? they sent to NPR demanding action be taken in re: Juan Williams, he identified NPR as having a liberal culture into which Mr. Williams did not fit. Mr. Williams, however, has been on the liberal side of virtually every issue for decades. To not be liberal enough for NPR, then, is like not being liberal enough for Bernie Sanders, or perhaps Karl Marx, but I repeat myself. Why o Earth should taxpayers fund anything to the tune of one, you should pardon the expression, Red cent that is so patently one-sided? How, one might well ask oneself, would the Left in this country like a similar financial arrangement as that between the liberals in Congress to the unholy trinity of CPB, NPR and PBS, if there was the mismatch, liberal vs. conservative, that exists now, only in reverse? I think the howls could be heard all the way over in Moscow and Beijing.

[sillynewsdude]

CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds. For fiscal year 2009, its appropriation was $400 million. There are these layers of the onion that need to be removed completely. This whole thing from top to bottom needs to go for it is a huge waste of tax payer money. Adding that to the master list of things that need to go. Thanks for the report.

[thirddave]

Wow. The tinfoil-hatted kool-aid drinkers are out in force on this comments page.
If you get your news solely from NPR/CPB you don't know what you're missing, namely the whole story.
I love the assbackward argument that 1. NPR doesn't get much tax money 2. therefore there is no need to cut the funding.
If NPR/CPB/PBS and all the member stations get so little they would stop taking any at all so they wouldn't have to deal with all the complaints from the vast right wing conspiracy. But you can't believe the amounts being reported. This report's discussion of the money is trying to play down how much it is. I am confident it's alot more than is being admitted.

And don't worry about the good shows. They will find homes. There is no shortage of opportunity in the current age for programing that gets even a relatively small audience. Defunding will get rid of all the useless programs, which for the most part are their policial commentaries. As for the news, don't worry CPB junkies, you get pretty much the same drivel on NBC, CBS and ABC.

[Brianna146]

Juan Williams was not telling the Truth (T) he was being truthful about his feelings, or telling his "truth," i.e. speaking his opinion. So he was not fired for telling the truth, per sae, but for expressing an opinion, which for NPR violates the standards of objectivity in news/journalism reporting. FOX News has no such standard in the sense that much of what they report as news is really opinion. Perhaps Juan Williams would feel much better reporting opinions at FOX News (aka Faux News). And secondly, his statement is a sad commentary for a person who is suppose to know the news business and the business of reporting the news, including the role of fact checking and interpretation of facts in an effort to get at as much of the reality of a story/situation as possible. Opinion will tell you how to think and feel, i.e. "fear Muslims in Muslim garb." Journalism will provide you the facts (9-11 terrorist did not wear muslim garb, so they were not recognizable in that sense), so you would no have any reason to fear because of "garb," though if you want to be afraid you can pick some other characteristic, such as last names, but event their you can be wrong, first and surnames can be shared by muslims and christians alike. So in effect William's statement provide no news, but did provide uninformed, xenophobic opinions, which he just as much admitted in the fullness of his statement on O'Reilly's (sp) show. Now to the opinion, many people still fear black men because of the color of their skin. This is something that can't be changed. So as far a my opinion goes, I am disappointed in Juan William's comment because it ignores the obvious, based on his own ethnic identity and heritage, xenophobia is dangerous to the internal strength, security, peace and safety of of our nation and millions of loyal Americans who are different in ethnicity,color and religion, but nevertheless are one as Americans. We may struggle over the meaning of that "oneness," but using group identity to typifiy certain behaviors whether negative or positive does not build a unified nation. Xenophobia is the opposite, it does place heavily, baised negative characteristics on groups for purposes only know to those who begin and foster the xenophobia (certainly it's not the average American, we only begin hate and fear when told to do so, especially when economic times are bad and we need to be distracted from real problems). Now all I've said could be called the truth, but as most of those who will strongly (weakly as well) disagree with me will attest, these are only my opinions or my interpretation of some facts that are out there somewhere. And lastly, just because a statement is agreed upon does not make it the truth, you just agree with it. Agreement is not truth. Just because a statement is disagreed upon, doe not make it not the truth. You just disagree with it. Disagreement with a statement is not the same as not being the truth.

[neopatetic]

@ Brianna146 (October 24, 2010 7:04 AM EDT):

"Juan Williams was not telling the Truth (T) he was being truthful about his feelings, or telling his "truth," i.e. speaking his opinion. So he was not fired for telling the truth, per sae, but for expressing an opinion, which for NPR violates the standards of objectivity in news/journalism reporting."

Brianna146 seems to be arguing on behalf of a proposition that it is impossible to do other than tell the truth about one's true feelings. Also, she seems to be arguing that how people feel about one another makes no difference to how they treat each other, or what laws are made. I think both of those are obviously bankrupt hypotheses. I think any time we cannot discuss, as Mr. Williams did in the fullness of his appearance that led to his firing by Ms. Schiller, the interplay between feelings and actions, in an open and honest way so that progress can be made toward a world in which fear, prejudice and bigotry play progressively less and less of a role, any time someone like Mr. Williams, who is not a reporter but a news analyst, is gagged in such a way that he cannot perform his professional function to the best of his abilities and to the benefit of all, something is terribly wrong. In effect, and if the NPR policy were to have been even-handedly enforced for all at NPR by that organization (which it manifestly has not been), they have constructed a policy there can be no doubt they would criticize through their programming if it applied elsewhere in society. Think for a moment:
what Mr. Williams did, in making a clean breast of his feelings while simultaneously making the point that we must not, despite our natural and understandable, if unreasonable, feelings, act in a prejudiced, bigoted or fearful way against some or all members of a larger class (especially based solely on the actions of only some of that class of people) ? be they Arab, Muslim, white, black, Catholic, Buddhist or whatever ? to let us all know that even compassionate, diversity-embracing liberals can have such feelings as he described.

So much of what Mr. Williams said, in full context, has simply gone unreported or wrongly reported. Is that the sort of evidence any of you would want used against you about everything you have ever said or done? Clearly not. One would think the Golden Rule virtually all of us learned in our childhood would at some point come into play: treat others as you would want to be treated. Read or watch the entire appearance. Do so fairly. If you do, I am quite confident you will come to understand the point Mr. Williams made, and quite properly.

[Amusedbyitall]

The article's attempt to be "fair" slants the article. As with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if you cannot show that foreign money goes directly goes to campaign contributions, the foreign corporations do not influence U.S. elections. The subscribers to NPR receive most of their funding from the private sector. So, how much of the fees and dues paid by the subscribers of NPR come directly government grants and how much comes from private donors? NPR, a private corporation the same as CoC, fired Juan Williams for breach of contract. The Palanistas are trying to influence private sector policies through government action. This is a thinly veiled attempt to enforce rightwing socialism.

[miami_don]

Well said.

[oldbasicgal]

Stop the federal funding to NPR. If only 2%, it won't hurt them, so why do it? They are prejudice...it doesn't matter which "side" they are on; they fired Juan based on his first admendment right....now what do they call themselves......National PUBLIC Radio? Nuf said!

[miami_don]

NPR fired him because he could not keep his mouth shut. He is a perfect fit for FOX. Opinionated, self-serving, egotistical, and bombastic --- gosh! He's O'Reilly's Mini-Me.

[stacyrch2010]

Brian, NPR can't be de-funded in the way Palin and Huckabee are calling for. It's based on a misconception that NPR is funded by tax dollars, which it isn't. Some of their money does come from federal dollars, but it's through competitive grants and the federal funds that are included in station dues.

This whole controversy wouldn't be happening if these particular politicians understood that a) NPR isn't "public" in the sense of being a government entity, and b) what they're requesting is actually censorship. Well, actually, they probably don't care about "b."

[sincity_q]

Baggers, birthers and buffoons? Tea party pimp?

Your lexicon is impressive. Do you hurl insults in any other language or are you limited to 5th grade drivel?

[brian_norwood]

I am a regular listener of NPR as well as a donor. To talk about defunding NPR would strip us of some real national treasures. Like "Car Talk", "Whadyaknow", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", "All Things Considered", and Garrison Keiller to name a few.

Doubtful the teabaggers are interested in these entertaining and often educational programs, but lots of us are!

[Gobsmacked1]

Remember: NPR does not mean the entirety of public radio. For instance, Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" is an independent show distributed by APM, not NPR. PRI, not NPR, distributes "This American Life." Everyone assumes NPR is it; not by a long-shot. There's PRI, APM, PRX, and all the stations that are members of NPR, PRI and APM, but still independent of NPR, PRI and APM. People generically use "NPR" too much. Are all airlines Delta? Are all cable networks HBO? No. So why do you think NPR is the total of public radio? Learn more, understand better.