UPDATE: See below for a correction/clarification to this post
As NPR announces layoffs and program cancellations to fix a $23 million budget hole (see here and here), it might be useful to consult the network's tax filings to see what the highest paid employees are/were making.
The latest IRS Form 990 on NPR's Web site gives salaries for the year ending September 30, 2007.
Then-president of NPR Kevin Klose made $465,994 from the network and $151,375 from the NPR foundation for a total of $617,369.
Kenneth Stern, who served as CEO before leaving abruptly in March of this year, made $427,057.
The 2007 return showed 15 people at NPR with the title of vice president or senior vice president. Most made between about $190,000and $260,000. A page on NPR's Web site shows 14 current vice presidents.
NPR reported its five highest paid employees were:
1. Managing Editor Barbara Rehm, $383,139
2. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel, $350,288
3. Morning Edition host Renee Montagne, $332,160
4. Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, $331,242
5. NPR afternoon programming director Richard L. Harris, $190,267.
The most eye-catching salary ever reported on an NPR tax form is probably the $505,132 paid to broadcaster Bob Edwards in FY2004, the year he was ousted as host of Morning Edition, quit, and went to XM Radio. He hosted his last NPR show in April, five months before the end of the fiscal year, so the half-million dollar salary (presumably including some kind of severance) seems to have been for just seven months work.
IRS rules require disclosure of the compensation of all officers and the top five rank-and-file employees. Since some NPR officers deferred compensation, the figures above include "benefit plan contributions" that take account of those earnings and some other benefits.
As someone who spent several summers interning in the newsroom at one of NPR's best stations (WBUR-FM in Boston), I think a lot of meagerly paid reporters and staffers at local NPR affiliates would find some of these salaries staggering. On the other hand, they are surely lower than those at commercial networks. I'm also a bit surprised at the big gap between the top three on-air talents (Siegel, Montagne, Inskeep) and the other reporters and anchors, who presumably make less than Harris.
I would think that any news story about layoffs and budget issues might want to include some of this information to give readers some data points as they digest the story.
UPDATE: The first version of this post identified the fifth most highly compensated employee at NPR (excluding officers of the company) as "science reporter Richard Harris." This was based on NPR's tax filing which described the No. 5 employee, Harris, as an on-air journalist, more specifically as a "senior host." Based on comments posted below and a phone call I just received from one of the parties involved, I now believe that the IRS filing's description of "Richard L. Harris" as "senior host" is inaccurate and that the Harris identified in the filing is actually an executive who oversees NPR's afternoon programming. So the science reporter Richard Harris should never have been mixed up in this post. Separately, some at NPR are dubious that the top five list filed with the IRS is accurate in other respects. I have an email into NPR seeking clarification on both points and will update as warranted.
UPDATE 2: An NPR spokeswoman says there is no "senior host" by the name of Richard L. Harris, contrary to the tax filing signed by NPR on July 8, 2008 and posted here. (jump to pdf page 54, statement 36)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
What I wonder about is what is paid to some of the "legendary" types. Cokie Roberts--does she get an actual salary? If so, for what--phoning in from her house once a week to talk about what she's read in the Washington Post? Mara Liasson--nothing wrong with her, but she is on very sporadically. Is she a full-timer? Juan Williams--reporter? commentator? If the latter, why no ideological counterpart on the right? Is he full-time? Speaking of legends, what does Daniel Schorr make? A legend to be sure, but his commentaries (also ideologically not counterbalanced by anyone equivalent), in which he compares some news bit about the Bush administration with something that Nixon did, are indistinguishable from each other.
If NPR is paying people, those people should be productive.
Your salary comparison is very much one of apples and oranges.
At any network, most talent will make more than what an affiliate is paying.
I don't know why you think NPR should be any different.
In addition, the money paid to Siegel, Montaine & Inskeep is a relative pittance compared to what top radio talk-show hosts make.
Rush Limbaugh, for example, makes $35 million a year. His is the most-listened to show in the nation.
Renee Montaigne, on the other hand, makes 1 percent of that amount co-hosting the second most-listened to show.
True, the revenue streams are very different, but I think it's fair to say that Morning Edition inspires more than a few listener donations nationwide that help NPR and local stations.
Overall, I'd say NPR's getting a lot of value for their money. Those salaries are not the problem. Massive dropoffs in underwriting is.
You've got your facts wrong. The Richard Harris named to the top of salary list isn't the NPR science reporter (and my wonderful former colleague). He is Richard L. Harris, a former NPRer who returned a few years ago to a senior management position. A simple look at the NPR web page could have prevented this howler.
Pull a host off the air sometime and watch the listener reaction. Then write about how they're not worth it.
Yes, I suppose it would be nice if the behind-the-scenes people were so well compensated, but that would mean the people who serve as hosts are only voices and that any monkey can do it. While the average person might believe that, the intelligent one wouldn't.
So let's suppose 7 percent of a workforce is laid off and we DID mention that a bunch of hosts who aren't being laid off make $300,000, what exactly is the point and wouldn't it be better to write well by making the point, and not innuendo?
So if the point is: Don't weep for those who were laid off, they made plenty of money, why not just say that?
If the point is: They got laid off because the hosts made too much money, why not just then say that?
Of course, if we did, we'd actually have to back it up with facts.
I'm not really a big fan of passive-aggressive communication, especially in my news stories.
Correction: The NPR website makes it nearly impossible to sort out your Richard Harris from your Richard L. Harris. My apologies. Still, you should correct your blog entry.
As I recall, high salaries, among other things, were part of the problem at WBUR as well, which forced the ouster of the station's leadership. One morning talk-short host, making more than $400,000, left in a huff after failing to get a sizable raise. God love NPR but compare those salaries to what some ink-stained wretches are making.
When I worked at WBUR in the late 1980s, they paid freelance reporters $50 a day. Of course, as an intern, I made $0 a day, though I loved the experience. Things apparently changed there on the salary front, at least for some, as WBUR-produced shows like "Car Talk" took off. But I stand by my point that the typical public radio station pays a pittance.
Pull a host off the air sometime and watch the listener reaction. Then write about how they're not worth it.
Siegel, Montagne, Inskeep, and Norris are eminently replaceable. They read script. They don't do their own journalism and they're not very good at interviewing (nothing but leading questions). They're humorless and pedantic. NPR is overpaying them.
(Riesdahl at least has some flavor, but Marketplace's writing is horrible.)
Perhaps Renee Montaigne should have jumped to Air America and saved it then, if she is, indeed, the 2nd most popular. She could have pulled in tons of advertising and listeners just as Limbaugh does for his bucks. Surely she could make more than Sean Hannity or Hugh Hewitt.
Oh, wait. That would require actual competition. Nevermind.
I'm sorry, what? NPR is still on the air? Who knew?
Admittedly, it's none of my business, since he's now in (what's left of) the private sector, but I'd love to know how much an employer who has to worry about the bottom line pays Bob Edwards to talk on the radio, compared with what he used to make from the generous contributions of non-listeners like me.
I thought Montaigne and Inskeep already proved that any monkey can do it after Edwards was shoved out. Seemed like there was much protest at that decision, and yet Morning Edition is stronger than ever. Edwards was quite popular himself, though. So, do we believe this is a function of the new hosts actually being that much more popular?
I, for one, do not. I believe it is a function of the Morning Edition formula. The host is secondary to the formula, and while I'm sure a bad host could drive people away, it doesn't take a superb talent to mind the store there. So no, not any monkey really, but any monkey above a certain level, yes. People don't tune in to ME for the talent. They tune in for the formula.
For some reason (I'm not sure why, even) I hold Siegel in higher regard. I suspect there will be outcry similar to Edwards if he is sent packing, but even then I think the formula of All Things Considered will overcome.
Some of the other NPR News shows are more centered around the on-air talent (I would put the Weekend Edition shows in here, for example), and of course the shows not from the news division tend toward that way. But I think the vast majority of the audience of ME and ATC are driven differently. I put myself in that category. On those shows, I'm not much concerned who the hosts are.
I don't really have an opinion if this means the on-air staff of those shows are paid too much, though. I'm sure there's a minimum you'd have to pay even to get the minimum necessary quality of talent, and it may well not be significantly lower than that. May also be governed somewhat by AFTRA, which these folks belong to, but I'm not in the biz so that's all just a bit of a guess.
Bluntly, NPR isn't in the league of ABC, NBC or any other radio network...and thats what bothers me the most about this salary business. They are a state-run radio network...period. What you saw in the 1970s and 1980s...was a network that had half their time invested in folk music, classical, opera and jazz. Each region or state had a couple of local chat or political shows per week...and the national guys made up the rest.
Look around....there might be a few hours a week of music now on your NPR station....but its like five percent of what used to play. The story-telling clips from the 1980s? Gone. Local programming? Almost completely gone.
So what do we have? News. Its rather humorous....I have 99 different possible news organizations that I can listen to, and these guys want to compete? And to compete...they have to hire folks at $150k or more? For a state-run network?
No, I'm not that stupid and most of you guys shouldn't be that stupid either. All of you ought to go back and review how you grew up with NPR in the 1970s and 1980s...and think about how far off the compass point these guys have gone. They are trying to justify something...that won't work.
My suggestion? Move all of NPR to Dayton, Ohio...heartland of America...and reset the wage scale. Folks won't stay? Fine...let them wander off to NBC or CBS radio...and try to get on with those guys. Lets bring back folks, opera, jazz, classical and story-reading. Lets downsize our news bit to four hours a day max. Lets give the local university kids a chance to contribute...and save some funding.
I'm not asking for a 5-star network. I'm asking for what NPR was in the early days to return. We are missing something that was valuable...and today...its simply another version of ABC radio.
Ripley Porch comments that there's too much news on public radio these days. Here in Hawaii we have a fantastic public radio operation, Hawaii Public Radio, that has two programs streams which are getting close to statewide coverage. One airs largely classical music and the other airs news and current affairs. And we benefit from an amazing number of very well-produced local shows on everything from early music to Frank Sinatra to high-tech innovation and Hawaiian music. We have very good community-oriented public radio that sounds like what you're looking for.
"The Ripley Porch" - You're confusion NPR with your local public radio station. NPR receives NO money directly from the state; it receives all its money from member stations such as your local public radio station.
You say: "The story-telling clips from the 1980s? Gone. Local programming?"
The local stations could play that kind of programming if they wanted to. NPR doesn't control what they play. NPR (as well as PRI, APM, PRX and others) merely provide programming to these stations. NPR doesn't own or control any radio stations.
There is a reason that local stations started buying their programming from NPR- it was cheaper than producing it locally.
You want that kind of programming back? Seek out the non-NPR member stations in your community, donate money to them and ask them to do that kind of programming. If there is a demand for it, they'll provide it. But if the only money they can raise is from people who are supporting NPR programming, then why would they bother with anything else?
"Lets give the local university kids a chance to contribute...and save some funding" - plenty of communities and cities have student-run radio stations. In fact, most if not all of the top markets have them. But guess what? They don't get near the audiences that stations playing NPR content get, and without the listeners, there isn't the same level of donations.
What you refer to as the early days of NPR isn't the early days of NPR, rather the days of past for public radio stations.
NPR=National Pentagon Radio
To Greg... I'd suggest trying to host a monstrously popular program with millions of listeners daily before you start talking about how easy it is. And, if you don't already, I'd suggest working in the radio business before you start talking about how easy the job is.
Alex, I never said it was easy. I made a very specific point about a show like Morning Edition or All Things Considered, that above a certain level of talent, WHO specifically is the host does not matter. I would still maintain that the audience is not tuning into those shows for the specific who of the host(s) but instead for the wildly successful formula.
There's a HUGE difference between that and suggesting it is easy to host such a program. I know it isn't. I didn't even think that was relevant to my point. I have great respect for the people who put those shows together, hosts included. What has to come together to make these shows work is pretty mind boggling. I may not particularly care for, say, Inskeep and Montagne, but that was part of my point. It doesn't even matter. The formula is so strong that I wake up every weekday with them despite not particularly caring for them as hosts. And not caring for them or believing anyone at a certain level or above could host the show does not equate to suggesting it's easy.
To The Ripley Porch: "State radio network" may be true in some states. But that has nothing to do with NPR. Those state radio networks are affiliates of NPR, and as such they choose their own programming. To my knowledge, more of them continue to program classical or other music during a good chunk of the day than do not. I know my local station programs jazz much of the day, which annoys me because I don't care for jazz, but anyway.
So apart from that, I would like to know what ABC/NBC/CBS/whatever shows compare to a 2-hour drive time news show both morning (Morning Edition) and afternoon (All Things Considered) every weekday, plus a different show for similar times on Saturday and Sunday (Weekend Edition and Weekend ATC). I haven't heard radio like that from anyone other than NPR.
I thought so much better of NPR. There's no reason they should be paying hosts that sort of money. Anchoring a show like Morning Edition or ATC does require a lot of talent from your talent. There aren't a ton of people of who can do it. But there are plenty of people with the requisite skills who would do it for less than 200k. And the star of the show, what keeps me listening, is the content -- not the hosts. I'm also disappointed to see senior management making such huge salaries.
The hosts and top managers should be well compensated. They work important jobs that require high skill levels, and there's a lot riding on their performance.
But they work for a nonprofit. And, largely, they work in news (even programming and executive types -- news is the core of NPR's operations and brand). They should make less than a similar job at DuPont
P.S. I do more journalism than the hosts of ME or ATC. I get paid less than 40 grand a year. Total budget hit for my position, if reported on a 990, would probably be under 60k. I donate to my local NPR station largely because of NPR news -- not the few locally produced programs. They will no longer receive any of my few dollars.
For critical observations of NPR, check this blog out:
http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/
See my salary range is already below the living standard. And yeah sure they like to raise the minimum wage. But with that they raise the prices of everything.
Post a Comment