Schiller’s own assessment is that the most important accomplishment of her first year has been getting NPR on firmer financial footing. The benefit givebacks, on top of the layoffs and significant expense cuts, were big parts of narrowing the budget gap. At the all-staff meeting in December, she shared numbers that showed that NPR’s deficit for fiscal 2009 was $10.1 million, considerably less than the $15 million deficit that the board had set as the maximum allowed. NPR’s current operations budget is $156 million. She thanked everyone for the sacrifices they had made. “We could have been on a path to a terrible place,” she said. “These are sacrifices we needed to make.”
She said the financial situation was a little brighter for the fiscal year that started in October, in which the board has approved running NPR’s operations at a deficit of $8.6 million. “We are on track to do better than that. How much better it is too early to tell, but we are encouraged that we are heading in the right direction,” Schiller said at the meeting. She told the staff she would restore one of the three unpaid holidays scheduled for the year as a sign that as conditions improve, all would share. When representatives of the two unions within NPR pressed to have more benefits restored, Schiller said the cuts were “baked into the projections.” The board has asked NPR to have zero deficit in fiscal 2011.
Keeping costs down won’t be easy. Contracts with the two unions that represent NPR employees—one for journalists and the other for engineers—both expire this year. And while Kevin Beesley, president of the NPR unit of AFTRA, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, said he’s been “blown away” by Schiller’s fresh approach, that doesn’t mean negotiations will be a cakewalk. “Her style was a huge success and was one of the reasons they got the money they needed from us” in the 2009 benefit givebacks, he said. Beesley, who is NPR’s European editor, reckons he personally gave up about $8,000 in benefits in the form of cuts to the company’s health and retirement contributions, as well as mandatory furloughs and unpaid vacations. “For the last year, we’ve felt management has been spending our money,” he said.
The union has been disappointed by what it sees as a larding of the management ranks. Beesley cited two recent hires to underscore his point. Keith Woods, a respected diversity expert who had been dean of faculty at the Poynter Institute, was brought on as vice president of diversity, a more senior title than NPR’s previous director of diversity and thus presumably with more clout. “That’s great,” Beesley said, “but what we desperately need are more young people from diverse backgrounds to bring their experience into our journalism. We don’t need another vice president to go to meetings and recommend more diverse hires only to be told, ‘There’s no more money. We spent it hiring you.’” The other new hire is Susanne Reber, deputy managing editor for investigations. She is an award-winning journalist who headed up an investigations unit for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and will oversee NPR’s first-ever investigative unit. NPR should pursue more investigations, Beesley said, but “management did not hire more investigative reporters. They hired a manager, and she can’t even edit because she’s not in AFTRA.”
Beesley’s concern is that too much money is being spent on managers, leaving little to improve the lot of the people who create NPR’s content. And although she has promised that no one is discussing more layoffs to reduce the budget, Schiller won’t rule out more job losses over the next five years as technology advances lessen the need for some positions.

Planet Money is the best thing to come to radio in a long time. I am not usually drawn to stories about the economy but seriously these are GREAT reporters with a more up to the moment sound and way of reporting that makes me WANT to listen.. Thank goodness the leadership at NPR now gets it. VIVA NPR.
#1 Posted by Marion Rice, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 01:32 PM
One of NPR's problems is that its programming is often confused with that from Public Radio International and American Public Media. And those producers have some excellent content, too, but they also have dreck such as the Howard Stern-eque "The Takeway" - one of the worst uses of the spectrum and airtime imaginable.
#2 Posted by Bill Johnson, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 03:18 PM
It would be good for the new folks at NPR to know of two mistakes in NPR's own past. Through some bad decisions, NPR single-handedly created its competition. (1) By refusing to consider carriage of Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion," NPR spurred Mr. Kling and some collaborating general managers to create Public Radio International (originally known as American Public Radio) to distribute the variety show nationwide. (2) NPR employed and helped Ira Glass develop his extraordinary talent, but failed to support him when it came to developing "This American Life" which is distributed by PRI. (3) By NOT paying attention to the world of business and commerce, NPR left an opening for PRI to create "Marketplace." Later, when NPR decided NOT to acquire Marketplace for fear of a lawsuit, APM did acquire the program (and a law suit, which was settled out of court). I wish NPR and their public broadcasting competitors well -- the world is enriched by their programs. But, sometimes what appears to be a small mistake can blossom into a game-changing result.
#3 Posted by Jim Russell, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 04:59 PM
#cjrfail. only mention of npr's diversity failings is in the context of criticsm of another high priced vp? can we get a re-write? did editor note the omission? npr is national public radio by and for white folks. what about the rest of america??
#4 Posted by amazing, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 07:12 PM
Is it coincidential that these changes at NPR have ocurred since Obama was elected? Not that I specifically attribute it to him. Nevertheless, sadly no mention was made of the dictatorial thought-police administration brought in by the Bushies.
#5 Posted by Hadassah Weinreb, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:43 AM
So if NPR gets all this money the author seems to believe it will get, can we cut it off the public dole?
#6 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 09:49 AM
It is disappointing that no where in this article is it pointed out that "NPR", has morphed into an almost Frankenstein distortion of what most people think, to this day, it ought to be, an alternative and critical compliment to corporate "for profit" media. Corporatizing and profitzing seems to be its total purpose now.
#7 Posted by vpa, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 11:17 AM
NPR has serious problems with its arts coverage that both it and the CJR should look into.
NPR has many sponsors that are major music, and publishing companies. See this list of sponsors.
http://www.npr.org/about/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf
Their influence on reviews and content is obvious. No matter what NPR says, the NPR reviews of music and books are all positive, and almost all the works reviewed come from the major art and media corporations.
What is not reviewed is also obvious. It is any work of any artist that opposes corporate art, or any artist that supports any new movement of art that is not controlled by mainstream corporate art, or any art advocacy group that is against corporate art. There is also no tough fair coverage of the music or publishing industry.
The last problem of NPR's coverage is the most damaging. NPR refuses to answer these concerns and explain how it chooses what art is covered, and why it doesn't cover most independent artists, new art movements, or art advocacy groups.
No matter what NPR claims, the truth is in their coverage and their website reviews is slanted and unfair.
#8 Posted by Tom Hendricks, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:31 PM
The news portion of NPR will thrive if it focuses on gathering and disseminating facts and reasoned analysis. Don't chase ambulances and don't follow other reporters to the day's or week's sensational new story, no matter how big it is. We can get our fill of such "news" elsewhere. The recent report of an analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's database of sudden acceleration complaints is a good example of what NPR News should be doing. Its not expensive (no flying reporters around the world) but very high value. Get good at collecting, analyzing, putting in context, and reporting the facts and listeners will beat a path to your door. No one else is doing it.
#9 Posted by Warren Tighe, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:38 PM
The spawning of APM and then PRI gave programmers at LO CAL public stations and NPR affiliates a bigger store. Listeners really don't see (well, hear) all these entities as competing with each other. Listeners are the winners, as each local station can buy, or not, the likes of This American Life or A Prairie Home Companion.
#10 Posted by stillfresh, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:48 PM
This is a very good read about a wonderful organization and its new leader.
We are appointment listners of NPR. Sunday afternoons are the best. as my wife and I share preparing dinner. Very cool.
#11 Posted by Jay Suber, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 12:50 PM
Remember the1977 movie "Network"? It is well worth watching this finely scripted and acted ensemble film about the growing corporate ownership of network television news again. The story told also applies to network radio news by extension. If profits for the owners and entertainment for the audience are the only values society derives from "The News" there was not, is not now, and never will be, truthful, accurate timely and comprehensive news in television media. Neither NPR at one end, nor FOX at the other, can long afford to disadvantage it's corporate advertisers in any fundamental way, shape or form. That is why real news is not and never will be tolerated once confined by for profit media or corporate sponsored media.
#12 Posted by J. Bridy, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 01:56 PM
I listened to "Planet Money" on the above poster's advice - they sound like giggly adolescents. I guess it's a generational thing...
#13 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 07:19 PM
>>"and serve audiences of all backgrounds and interests."
I'll believe that when I hear it. What are you going to be doing to serve the Tea Party crowd?
#14 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 07:32 PM
Ms Schiller is sending the right signal to NPR staff and local stations -- it may be an anarchic system as Ms Seymour says, but it is *a system* with interlocking parts. Where one succeeds, all succeed. What local stations must do is focus on bringing superb journalism to their communities. (Some will choose music and that's fine.) It's the historic underdevelopment of news resources at the local stations that makes NPR's assistance both vital and challenging. For stations, these are the best and worst of times -- but time to get it right seems to be in short supply.
#15 Posted by Michael Marcotte, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 01:36 PM
I think NPR is corporate pablum. Just because it is longer than the rest of the garbage doesn't make it better. There are plenty of academic studies which show that it's particular brand of bland, faux objectivity is no different than most other mainstream news. Shiller is cultivating NPRs mainstreamness in order to occupy a journalistic space filled with talking-point influenced propaganda. NPR is safe "news" for old, white folk.
#16 Posted by don pasqueda, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 11:47 AM
Having listened to and read several of Shiller's remarks regarding NPR, especially those talking points channeled through the NPR Ombudman, I don't believe a thing she says. Shiller is a propagandist. NPR sounds like VOA. And Planet Monkey not only SOUNDS childish, it IS childish. Listeners (and readers) of NPR content who cannot distinguish between REAL context, REAL research, REAL facts, and REAL analysis will continue to confuse NPRs stylistic evolution with substantive changes. Shiller is a cosmetologist putting lipstick on the NPR corporate pig.
#17 Posted by don pasqueda, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 12:15 PM
What don pasqueda said.
Also, nprcheck2.blogspot.com
#18 Posted by Geoff Hagopian, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 03:42 PM
I tkink...emphasize think...you are GREAT!!!
#19 Posted by Mary Wilinsky, CJR on Tue 9 Mar 2010 at 03:45 PM
One issue that desperately needs reporting: NPR is decidedly anti-union, beginning with the people who are responsible for its sound.
The union (NABET) representing engineers at NPR is at a critical stage in contract negotiations with the company. Many engineers are afraid this will be their final contract because NPR is downsizing the engineering staff. NPR's contract offer consists largely of buyouts, plus a diminishment of benefits, rights and working conditions that are designed to make engineers not even want to work there any longer. Employees in the other union at NPR, AFTRA, are next on the chopping block when they go to negotiate their next contract next year.
What NPR is offering NPR engineers:
The company is offering 2.5% wage increases per year for five years, with the first increase starting next January (meaning two years without a raise). In exchange, for the next five years you must surrender all job jurisdiction, the right to bargain over health care and benefits, the right to get the company 403(b) contributions restored to its former level, the right to bargain over working conditions such as the various leave policies (which become dictated by the employee manual, which management can change at their discretion), the right to influence the number of slots available for vacation, and the right to get paid double time for any work past twelve hours in a day. Buyouts between 10-14 months salary, including COBRA (keep your health care if you pay for it yourself) to 15 employees. The remainder subject to layoffs anytime. Company can have as many as 50% temps.
To register your feelings on this issue join a Facebook Group called People Who Like People Who Work @NPR:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1662444465&ref=search#!/group.php?gid=342906561926
#20 Posted by Lars Hoel, CJR on Mon 22 Mar 2010 at 02:56 PM
For all the money spent, lost and looked for, it should be pointed out that NPR has not had a successful, long running radio show, produced "in-house" in 20 years. All the new and creative show ideas have come from outside the organization: "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell me...," "Science Friday," "On The Media" 'Planet Money," Radio Lab," etc, etc.
The last group of programs to be produced by the network - "Bryant Park Project," "Day To Day," "Tavis Smiley" to name but three were all dropped or let go.
While it boasts of it's money raising prowess, NPR has lost the DNA of its program creativity as some of it's best and most creative producers have been fired or left for a less stifling environment outside of the Mother Ship for a breath of "Fresh Air," Woops. That's produced outside, too.
No wonder NPR has dropped the word "radio" from it's credits.
#21 Posted by Harry Bannerman, CJR on Mon 12 Apr 2010 at 06:08 PM
Lost in all of this is the effect that NPR dictates have had on local stations — like our KUT in Austin, which has channeled a too-large portion of its budget into schemes such as the ill-fated HD radio channels (filled by canned content supplied by NPR and the like) and an increased local-news budget. Which has resulted in the loss of local jobs, local shows, and, ultimately, local interest. This had led to a formation of a national website (keeppublicradiopublic.com) and Facebook site (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112566211435&ref=ts#!/pages/Keeping-the-Public-in-Public-Radio/107942542579499?ref=ts) uniting protesting listeners from Austin, Boston, Gainesville, and other cities opposed to the machinations of those not familiar with the problems faced in the hinterlands.
#22 Posted by Craig Hattersley, CJR on Sun 9 May 2010 at 10:56 AM
NPR's HD Radio is a farce!
hppt://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com
#23 Posted by Greg, CJR on Sun 9 May 2010 at 12:27 PM