It's been seven years since I addressed the effectiveness and future of the NPR Bureau Chief System. I guess this is partly because nothing major has really happened to the system. Until now.
The four bureau chiefs, as most public radio news people know, are set up in four regions around the country (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) and serve as intake editors for NPR stories. Some stories are assigned to NPR reporters, some are assigned to station-based reporters. Either way, the bureau chiefs are the primary link from the hinterlands back to NPR headquarters where the finished stories get funneled into Morning Edition, ATC, etc.
Now, there's a move by NPR management to pull out of Seattle and San Diego the two editors who split the west -- and combine them into a single position based at NPR studios in Los Angeles. The plan has produced howls of protest by station news directors and reporters. It has also triggered a formal protest by the union representing NPR news staff.
NPR's reasons for withdrawing Kate Concannon (Seattle) and Alisa Joyce-Barba (San Diego) seem to center on the idea that the editing can be more efficient and more effective if a single western editor is housed at NPR West amidst other network staff.
[Note: I asked Western Senior Editor Philip Bruce what's going on here? He oversees NPR West in L.A. and must be central to this plan. His reply was courteous but curt: it's a personnel matter and he cannot comment.]
It should be noted that no similar decision is pending against the other bureau chiefs: Russell Lewis in Birmingham, AL; Andrea De Leon in Portland, ME; or Ken Barcus in Cleveland, OH. For that matter, there's no apparent recall of the roughly 20 NPR staffers (mostly reporters) based in their homes or member stations all over the United States.
Some have speculated the real issue here is the job-share. While I know the 50-50 split can leave reporters sometimes guessing which editor is working the desk that day, overall the job-share would seem to be a very good deal for NPR: yielding more than the sum of two half-time editors who, by the way, don't take benefits, plus give NPR extra regional-diversity, not to mention built-in holiday back-up. I've heard the western editors actually kick down way more stories than their peers in the other regions, which counters any complaint of inefficiency.
For the record, I'm friends with Kate and Alisa. I've worked with both for over a dozen years. We've had our differences over editing decisions yet I've always respected them and their hard work on behalf of the stations. But this is besides the point.
I don't take up this issue as a defense of friends. I see this as a troubling sign that NPR is weakening the very bond that *it* says needs strengthening.
Forget that news directors like me have called for a more robust bureau chief system for many years. More to the core of the matter is that NPR is calling for a new and improved symbiotic relationship with member stations. It's part of CEO Vivian Schiller's (brilliant if you ask me) campaign to exploit the strengths of the NPR system at a time of media upheaval like nothing we've ever seen.
Ms. Schiller is wagering on the future of public radio because of its excellent product, its strong brand loyalty, its diversified funding model, and also because of its locally-planted community roots. The stations provide presence and contact in the hinterlands. Moreover, the stations are successfully growing their news staffs and their coverage capacity.
The bureau chiefs are the unsung heroes, the key linkages in the network-station editorial relationship, a relationship that must be tended and nourished.
I respect Phil Bruce and NPR managers to make personnel decisions they think serve the network -- and the audience -- best. But the same argument behind the building of NPR West should apply to the regionalization of the bureaus. We all heard how the addition of NPR West would infuse NPR's stale beltway mentality with some fresh California attitude. So, it is true that outposts in other areas can be inlets for even greater diversity of news and views.
Kate in Seattle breathes the same air as the reporters of KUOW and KPLU. She's immersed in the unique rhythm of the Pacific Northwest. Even in Seattle, she's eminently closer to the eco-culture of Oregon and Idaho and Wyoming and Montana than if she were to drive to work in L.A. traffic, enroll her kids in California schools, and have lunch on Sepulveda.
Alisa in San Diego may be in Southern California but San Diego is not Los Angeles. It's military history, conservative fringe, and border-based population is a world apart. The same argument goes for stationing folks in Alabama, Maine and Ohio.
Seven years ago I called for a doubling in the number of bureau chiefs to promote stronger connections with stations in America, to enable more bureau-sponsored training and outreach, but especially to relieve the unrealistic pressures on the current regional editors. Now, the ratio of stations to chiefs is about to get worse!
I don't care to stick my nose into personnel matters. But if NPR wants to harness the tremendous editorial power of its station network, it should use the bureau chiefs, not silence them.
Mike's Add: A few days after this was posted here, NPR responded in a message to the system.
