The Big Bucks & Pink Slips in Public Radio (Updated)
UPDATED: Thank you to Anna Christopher, Senior Manager, NPR Media Relations, for the following clarification: David -- Unfortunately, the 990 you referenced is a bit confusing, and there is an error with one of the names listed. First, the name: Richard Harris should be Richard L. Harris, who is Director of Afternoon Programming at NPR. The science reporter Richard Harris is a different person. We are amending the 990 to correct Richard L. Harris's name, and to clarify this point about compensation.
My sincere apologies for confusing the identities of the two Richard Harrises! The necessary corrections have been made below-- DW Feb. 3, 2009).
In the past, you might have assumed that nobody went into public broadcasting for the money, but those days are long gone. Consider the five most highly-compensated journalists At National Public Radio (NPR), for example as of 2007, the most recent available, and cover only the non-officers in the company:
Name Salary Benefits
Robert Siegel (senior host) $322,640 $27,648
Renee Montagne (senior host) $300,478 $31,682
Steve Inskeep (senior host) $293,077 $38,165
Barbara Rehm (M.E.) $356,735 $26,404
Richard L. Harris (Aft. Dir.) $170,994 $19,273
(* = contributions to employee benefit plans and deferred compensation)
Now, when it comes to journalism, these employment packages are not at all shabby. They are competitive with what top editors at metropolitan newspapers earn, as well as execs in commercial radio.
Plus, as an avid listener to NPR programs, I can attest that these particular individuals are worth the dough.
When you dig into the financials at the member stations, however, the "talent" is nowhere near the top of the salary pyramid. A senior level of management earns the big bucks at a company like KQED, not the hosts or reporters.
Speaking of Northern California's largest public broadcaster, those layoffs we've been predicting are now scheduled to begin this coming Monday. The word we get is that bureaus will be closed or cut back, open positions left unfilled, and a number of people who have spent their entire careers at the station will be getting pink slips.
The situation is complicated, because much of KQED's staff, particularly on the technical and customer service side, is unionized. It can be almost impossible to fire union members, so the station is offering buyouts in an effort to reduce staff in those areas.
The underlying cause of this impending wave of layoffs (which the station's communications director has tried to keep under wraps by warning that all contact with yours truly, among other reporters, has to go through him -- good luck, pal) is not the slowing economy, although advertising revenue ("corporate underwriting") is down across the board.
Nope, the underlying problem is that KQED spent too much money acquiring smaller radio and TV stations throughout Northern California in recent years, and became over-extended as it tried to absorb and integrate these operations into its centralized management system.
Many of the companies KQED bought were not very efficiently run or financially healthy; in addition, the company has faced local opposition from audiences loyal to their (formerly) local public broadcasters.
In some areas, notably Sacramento, at least one local station that remains independent of the sprawling KQED, has competed head-to-head with its San Francisco rival and won the battle of the ratings in that marketplace flat-out.
There's much, much more that those both inside and close to the relevant NPR affiliates have been telling me in recent weeks, but there will be time to discuss that once the current round of layoffs is complete. I'll also be looking at the compensation of senior staff at KQED to give readers an idea of how funds are allocated by this particular broadcaster.
In the meantime, on a happier note, congratulations to the radio staff at KQED, for regaining its top-rated status as the most-listened-to news station in the country! Great work; well-deserved.