No 'low-hanging fruit' in sight to solve NPR's revenue problem

Originally published in Current, Nov. 17, 1997

Don't expect NPR to find "big, big" revenues in entrepreneurial ventures, said President Del Lewis. The major deal on his mind at the time of the interview, Oct. 29, was the proposed merger with PRI that he had discussed with his board of directors four days earlier. He talked with Current Associate Editor Jacqueline Conciatore and Editor Steve Behrens in his office at NPR. Below is an edited transcript. Lewis was hired by NPR in August 1993 from a Bell Atlantic subsidiary, C&P Telephone Co. of Washington, where he had risen from public affairs manager to president in 10 years. Leaving the phone company was Lewis's second retirement, as he counts them. He earlier worked in government as a legislative aide, a Peace Corps executive in Africa and a federal attorney.

Conciatore: You presented a plan to the board to merge NPR and PRI, a proposal. At what point did the idea become a real possibility?

Lewis: It was more of an idea than a proposal. And it was, among other options, an option for how we plan our strategic moves for the future. In that context, it was one idea.

The competition for public radio may not be just within the industry. We know it's outside the industry as well. Here in Washington, if you look at WTOP going from AM to FM, and if you listen to WTOP's public pronouncements, they're very clear: "We want to go to FM, and we are after the FM audience." So when you know some commercial broadcasters, the Internet, other companies are interested in radio and interested in our audience--the competition is out there.

There are a lot of strategic options for NPR. How can you align yourself, partner yourself, think about leveraging your resources to better compete and to grow your company? That's the context. I'm not at liberty to go any further than that.

Conciatore: Can you tell us who made the initial phone call? Was it you or [PRI President] Steve Salyer?

Lewis: I don't know why that's important. Let's go back to the beginning. In 1993, Steve Salyer walked into my office at 21st & M Streets and said, "I have an idea about overseas. Your predecessor didn't particularly want to pursue it. What do you think about it?" I said, "We're just thinking about doing something overseas." He said, "I think if we do it together, we can get some CPB funding." You can call that an initial conversation. We've been talking ever since.

Conciatore: So where are your talks now?

Lewis: We are still looking at the possibility of talking about coming together in some fashion. Our board said [in a meeting in Houston, October 25 and 26] to explore it. They didn't say, "We are for it" or "We're against it." We discussed a lot of things.

Conciatore: Would you articulate some of the benefits to the system?

Lewis: No, I think that discussion will come later. If the idea goes anywhere, we'll be at a better stage to talk about it. It may not go anywhere; it may not make sense for whatever reason and we'll stop talking. But that won't mean we won't cooperate later, or possibly begin talking again.

Lewis: Oh, November is a retreat we have every year. And the board stated clearly that it wants to get into strategic planning. We will continue to discuss this idea and others.

Behrens: What did the board accomplish in the Houston meeting?

Lewis: It was an informational meeting, not a board meeting.

Behrens: But how much of the board was there?

Lewis: Almost all the members.

Behrens: We've heard you're talking about creating two or three organizations out of the combination of NPR and PRI. Could you talk about that generally?

Lewis: Nope.

Behrens: As recently as a few months ago, in a board meeting, you've expressed the feeling that NPR's membership structure complicates decisions that have to be made promptly in radio. Other people have said PRI is a model for the kind of service organization that could move faster.

Lewis: There are values to both models, and if you're going to put them together you have to come to some compromise. There is value to the membership model, I want to be very clear about that. It has served us well. I think our success on Capitol Hill is strongly related to our closeness to our stations and our communities. That membership organization has made us very, very strong.

Yes, there is some value in PRI's marketing abilities and their affiliate relationship, and they've exploited it very, very well. So when you talk about coming together, you come together with organizations that have value. So I'm not making a judgment for one or the other. If things go forward, we'll see how it all plays out.

Conciatore: Obviously, the merger could create efficiencies.

Lewis: It's conceivable. The [benefit] that really piques my interest is the economic leverage, because with finite resources in our industry--and they're going to get smaller--how do you leverage what you have for the best listening? So, just economics makes you think this may be worth exploring.

Behrens: One economic advantage of the present set-up is competition among program suppliers. You have said yourself that having PRI around keeps NPR on its toes. A merger could affect pricing or responsiveness. How could you maintain this kind of incentive in a combined organization?

Lewis: That is a very good question--one I wrestle with, coming from the competitive world. I believe in competition, I believe it's healthy and it's made America great.

But this is not-for-profit, public spirited, public broadcasting. And I'm not so sure those same principles of competition apply completely across the board. Attracting investment is not as easy. It doesn't fit exactly. On the programming source, there will still be competition, don't get me wrong. And you know where it's coming from? It's coming from those who are vying for our ears and our eyes. That's entertainment, media, cable, television and computer companies. That's the real competition. Inside public radio is not the biggie.

Behrens: NPR's been moving ahead with plans for a Saturday quiz show that competes with Whad'Ya Know?. You have a program package that gives stations an incentive to run NPR shows instead. Some station people see this as a squandering of resources. A little bit too hardball. Why didn't NPR just work out a deal with PRI so you could feed Scott Simon and then Whad'Ya Know? or offer some other combined package?

Lewis: Are you making an argument for a merger, Steve? Sounds pretty good to me. You have just given one of the real answers for why some kind of alliance makes sense!

If you're in a competitive mode, you sometimes forget the real object. In competition, what's the objective? Not to serve. To win! That is the objective. My objective in public radio is to serve, a whole different ball game. What if I win the 5 a.m. slot? Competitive. Important to do. I beat Salyer there! 5 a.m! But is that the best for the listener? I think, on balance, yes. But was that my motivation? Those are things you have to answer.

I've been sitting back and saying, "You know, I wonder about all this. Are we really serving the listener? Are we really giving the best quality programs to the listener?" That's our mission! Not to beat up on PRI. I'm very serious about that. That's my motivation here.

Behrens: You came from Bell Atlantic, and you brought in a lot of fast-moving business leaders like Bob Johnson of BET and Peter Barton of Liberty Media, to give pep talks about entrepreneurial thinking. And as a result public radio has been expecting you would swing some private-sector deals.

Now, this merger with PRI would be quite a deal, but are there other big deals in NPR's future? Or are the only large, available deals the ones that NPR wouldn't want to have?

Lewis: I had a few things in mind by bringing those people in. One was to say, "We're not here in a vacuum, we're part of an industry." [Another] one, you've alluded to: I was exploring. I wasn't sure I could get private investment here. We're still not sure. We're still working at it.

But it's tough, because I have to create a mechanism where there's some return. And you've got to have capital to invest in products to talk about return. So it becomes a kind of a Catch 22 situation. So corporate executives who like us, admire us, respect us, may contribute to us, but that's not quite like investment. Bob Johnson or Liberty Media can give us a grant, or they give us their facility to have an anniversary party. But when you're talking about making an investment in programming, we haven't quite figured that out.

Behrens: Few people who read Current would have to be convinced that NPR's archive and its name are worth a lot in terms of their credibility, and their value to the listeners. But are they worth much more commercially than they're earning now?

Lewis: It's not big, big dollars. And you have some problems going in: you have problems of copyright and digitizing those archives.

There don't appear to be any "low-hanging fruit" we can easily pick that will bring millions of dollars into NPR. But there are some projects that we think are worth exploring that will build revenue over time. And we're looking at those. I think the Internet really does have some possibilities and we're looking at a number of potential partners.

We have an arrangement with Borders Books for kiosks of NPR products in their stores across the country. That's probably incremental [revenue], but it gives us important visibility as well as connection to our local stations.

Behrens: You made a presentation last year about creating a for-profit subsidiary. Are you still thinking about that?

Lewis: It's still in our minds, that we have to start somewhere, but we'd probably start with a not-for-profit subsidiary that would be a unit of NPR. If it makes sense, we could certainly split it off as a for-profit.

Behrens: Another way of building support for NPR was raising money for the NPR Foundation. How it that going?

Lewis: The foundation is doing extremely well. In fact, we have an endowment now of about $6 million.

Behrens: Can you trace where that came from?

Lewis: Most of it was brought in by the foundation board members themselves. They have commitments of "X" dollars per year, and then commitments to raise "X" dollars. So the foundation members themselves put in a large measure of the endowment.

Then we received a matching grant from the Ford Foundation, something like $2.5 million. They're talking about raising that target. They're even talking about raising the amount of money each person will contribute, how we will match that, what the goal might be for the next 3 to 5 years.

Joint fundraising with stations may or may not go into the endowment. It may go into our fund for new initiatives or into other programs. And we split it with stations, 50-50, 60-40, 70-30--depending on what we negotiate.

Behrens: You started work here about four years ago. Did you tell NPR then that you were planning to stay about five years, either as a minimum or maximum?

Lewis: No, I think I might have said privately and informally three to five years, but I don't think I said it to the board. So I've passed the three. And I'll probably pass five years! But I do want to clear up one thing, because I've gotten some indications that Current has asked people about a contract. And I want to make it very clear--I don't have one! And some board members didn't even know it!

Conciatore: But are you going to have one?

Lewis: I made a proposal. I came into the organization knowing there's not a contract for the president/c.e.o. I knew that coming in. It's a year-to-year. I'm evaluated every year, usually at the November meeting, and I told Kim [NPR Board President Kim Hodgson] last February that I thought we ought to talk contract.

Behrens: It was in the Post a couple of days ago or weeks ago, that PBS is lobbying Congress to remove the cap on salaries at PBS and NPR.

Lewis: I support that. [Laughter]

Behrens: Has NPR done anything to achieve that? Is it supporting PBS's initiative?

Lewis: Gerald Baliles, who's [recently retired] chairman of the board of PBS, is very, very strong on that issue. Kim Hodgson and Baliles--along with Bob Michel, a very popular former Republican leader in the House--went around the Hill, and I heard they had a really good one-two punch, saying that we need to be able to recruit and keep the kind of executive talent necessary to run these institutions in public broadcasting. And they got in the door and they were listened to.

Conciatore: I think you've answered the question, but can you just respond to rumors out there that you are planning on leaving NPR imminently?

Lewis: I can respond. I have no plans to leave. Someday I'll retire for the third time. But no, I don't have any plans to leave. I'm very excited about our future and excited about the possibilities for public broadcasting. It is one of the best real opportunities to make a mark for the future, right here, and so I'm very excited about staying.

Conciatore: People are speculating about your move to New Mexico.

Lewis: I made that very public: in my private life, my spouse had been talking about having a second home in the Southwest, so we purchased a house in Las Cruces, N.M., in May, a year ago. And I'm still here at NPR.

Behrens: But how can you spend much time there? That's a lot of airline food.

Lewis: Oh, it's true. My spouse spends a lot more time there than I do. When I travel I try to spend a little time there also. And we're spending vacations there. That may be where we retire. We have a small place, it's fine ... we like it. But that doesn't mean I'm leaving NPR.

Behrens: NPR's apparently reorganizing its Member Services department. What's the new structure going to look like? We've heard it will have a project-driven structure, designed with units for stations with particular needs--helping them with their licensees or their fundraising or whatever.

Lewis: I haven't gotten a final plan. The big thought there in reorganizing Member Services was to be better able to respond to stations and their needs.

And the piece [of the reorganization already announced] that was not quite understood was the program services piece. We had given stations the impression through our Program Strategies Board that a new Saturday lineup was going to be online in 1997. And we didn't deliver. There was some confusion in-house as to whether we made that promise. Stations thought we had.

So when [Chief Operating Officer Peter Jablow and Vice President Mary Lou Kenny] and I and others looked at that, we started thinking, we've got to shore this up. And we thought, since we're really talking about the delivery of service to stations, probably Member Services would be the best group to do this. So the thought was to bring in a program services director, under Member Services, who will handle non-programmatic aspects of program delivery. [Since this interview in November, the opening was filled with Steve Olson, president of Public Radio Program Directors Association.]

Well, stations felt, "Now you've got Member Services determining the program content." And that's not true. Programming content is still with Cultural and News. This is non-content program direction under a program services director--helping move projects, making sure they get done.

Behrens: But if this person doesn't have any influence over the producers, how will that move things along?

Lewis: I don't know what you mean by "influence." We operate here as a team. What we're talking about is making sure this project team understands the dynamics, the deadlines, that everybody's on base, and the work gets done. So whether you have control is not the issue, It's whether we're working together to serve the needs of the stations. But the content will still remain on the News and Cultural Programming side.

Conciatore: Won't that unit be involved in deciding what new programs come along?

Lewis: No! Where do new programs germinate anyway? They can come from anywhere inside the building. Where they begin to take shape editorially is behind the fire wall in News and Cultural.

Behrens: For a long time you've been active in the Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington and other arts and community groups. I believe you're also on the boards of Chase Manhattan and Colgate-Palmolive. And you were on Apple Computer's board until a few months ago.

Lewis: I'm no longer on Chase. When they merged with Chemical Bank, they were combining two big boards and needed some seats. But I'm still on Colgate's board.

Behrens: Are there any other corporate boards now?

Lewis: Halliburton Co. [an oil-industry engineering firm based in Dallas], Guest Services Inc. [a food services operator specializing in parks] and BET [an operator of cable networks]. Now you should understand that, even though I don't have a contract with NPR, there was an informal understanding when I was hired that I could remain on the boards, as long as they didn't pose any conflict. To take on any other boards, I was to get the approval of the chair of the NPR Board. I did that with Halliburton.

The other important thing to point out is that the boards have not been real time-consumers. Serving on the boards helped us and helped me personally in many ways. I can keep an eye on what's happening in the business world, and I think that's helpful to us. Secondly, I use that network to raise funds for NPR. As I was listening to NPR the other morning, there was an underwriting announcement from Chase Manhattan, and then right after that there was Colgate. Chase gave us $20,000 a year for five years, and we're on their matching gifts program, and we got a small grant from Colgate and we're on their matching gifts program. So it's been valuable from the fundraising standpoint, and it's been valuable from the networking standpoint. And they haven't caused any conflicts.

Behrens: Some people, in the building and outside, assume if they don't know where you are at the moment, then you're out working on some board. And maybe that was true during the Apple crisis. That must have occupied some of your emotional energy, if not time.

Lewis: Yeah. Most of it was done by teleconference, however.

You know, it's interesting, [this question] about [my] not being in the building. I think you have to understand the culture here and you have to understand maybe how my predecessor operated. And I'm not Douglas Bennet, and I don't operate as he operated.

Behrens: How did he operate? Holed up in his room?

Lewis: I think, maybe! I wasn't here, but I get a sense of his style.

I don't think you can point to any things that have gone awry on any of my trips or because of my not being here. So it's kind of a bugaboo, in my judgment.

People don't know what I do when I travel. You ought to interview my spouse, who says, "When are you going to take a vacation?" If you believe travel is fun, and I'm out playing golf, you're wrong. I don't play golf; I am out raising money, talking to stations, talking to funders, talking to listeners, as well as attending a board meeting or two throughout the year.

Behrens: Of the time you're gone, what percentage is the board meetings?

Lewis: Colgate meets about nine times a year--that's an hour shuttle flight. Halliburton meets four times a year. Guest Services meets four times a year in Arlington, Va.--it may take up two hours. BET meets maybe three times a year in Washington. So they're not exhaustive time-consumers. But my schedule is related to NPR. When I go to New York, I go to visit WNYC on one day with the Ford Foundation the next day and at Colgate the day after that. But who paid for the trip? Who paid for it, Steve?

Behrens: Uh, toothpaste?

Lewis: You got it. So if you really figure out what I'm doing and how I'm doing it, it's definitely to the benefit of NPR. Now, there's the question of the wear and tear on my body, and I've got to examine all of that as time goes on. Because I have a very high energy level and I really have a network of things I'm doing for this company and I may have to slow that down from time to time.

Behrens: You're involved somehow with BET management's proposal to buy out some or all of the stock in the company. What are you doing in that connection?

Lewis: That was one of those board responsibilities that comes on you very unexpectedly. Bob Johnson and Liberty Media proposed to buy out all the outstanding shares at $48 a share. Stock was trading at that time at $41. As soon as they made that announcement, stock went up to $51. Some stockholders felt that $48 was not adequate. When something like that happens, a board usually appoints a special committee to review the fairness of the offer, with a mandate to determine a range for a fair offer. The committee hires counsel and investment bankers for advice.

Many of the [BET] board members have a financial relationship with Bob Johnson and or Liberty Media. There were two of us that did not, the actor Denzel Washington and Delano Lewis. Denzel declined, I think because of schedule and time. And I figured I had a fiduciary responsibility to do it.

We've hired Goldman, Sachs as our investment banker. We've hired a local law firm here as counsel to the committee. Goldman is already analyzing the data. I would think by the end of the year or close to it the special committee ought to be able to make a recommendation.

Behrens: You were on scene at one of most tumultuous, high-profile business stories of the year--Apple's hiring and firing Gilbert Amelio as c.e.o., the resignations of almost all of the board and the return of Steve Jobs, the co-founder. Was Apple on the right path under Amelio, or is it now? Is there any way it can avoid declining to a fraction of its former role in the computer business?

Lewis: This will be my first public statement about Apple.

It was a fascinating experience, absolutely fascinating. I was on the board a little over two years. ... My assessment of Gil was that he was on the right track. Gil brought to the table an understanding of technology and business. But I'm not so sure he understood Apple culture. Just to give you one little nuance: he called himself "Dr. Amelio." Bad move. Great guy. Really smart--he owns about 20-some patents. He was beginning to put a team together, which [predecessor Michael] Spindler had trouble doing. You have to have a good team. Spindler just couldn't put a team together. Gil began putting a team together, began developing a mission and a vision for Apple. But I don't know what happened. As we kept losing money, the board kept asking, "Well, what's going on? Is the mission wrong? Is the direction wrong? Is the discipline wrong? We can't seem to make the turnaround." He had turned around a couple of companies and was just not quite able to make the turnaround.

Spindler had in his mind, "Fight Microsoft." Gil's vision was this: You got a very complicated set of issues; Microsoft has become the giant. If you spend all your time fighting Microsoft, you're not going to win. You've got to figure out where you want to be and how you want to serve what segment of the market.

Microsoft's underlying platform is still old. Apple's platform is old. Whoever can get to the most modern operating platform will win. Amelio was trying to figure out--how do you get to that next operating level? That was a product called Rhapsody. But Rhapsody wasn't coming online for 18 months. How do you stay alive between now and 18 months? One way was to acquire a company that would give you some boost and some products to get Rhapsody out earlier, and we looked at two companies--the Be Corp. and Next. Next is owned by Steve Jobs. Both had great technologies. Apple leaned more toward Next, because Next had had some market tests and had some success. So we acquired Next. And that brought along Steve Jobs. Fascinating drama, because that might have been Mr. Amelio's undoing.

The thing that people don't understand about business is that it isn't a science. I think it was Peter Drucker who said, "Business is an experiment." People believe these guys sitting around corporate tables know all the answers? No! They make good, intelligent judgments on good, sound data, but they take risks. Some make it. Some don't. Nature of business.

Did Amelio run out of gas? Who knows? Did his team fall apart? Did Jobs sabotage him? Who knows? Apple is still losing money.

Behrens: By hiring Jobs, they have gone back to the womb.

Lewis: The board moved quickly to try to stem the tide, and decided that Amelio probably needed to go. We needed to bring in another c.e.o. I decided I wanted to leave. It was clear that a lot of other board members probably would leave or be asked to leave. I wanted to leave. And that was understood. I said, I felt the board had two options. Almost coming to pass today. Either the board must have a vision for Apple or have a c.e.o. who could come in with a vision you support. If you don't have the vision. . . You need to bring Steve Jobs in, make him accountable, ... and give him every tool to achieve his vision. They said, "He doesn't want to be c.e.o." I said, "You want to bet? You don't understand people. ... Jobs founded Apple. He got kicked out. There is an emotional attachment." I told them before I left, "My judgment is, either you give him the c.e.o.'s job or you're going to be right there a year from now. Because I don't believe you going to get a c.e.o. who's going to come in with Mr. Jobs here and the power that he has."

What is his vision? I'm not sure. And that's one of the reasons I wanted to leave. He's a very charismatic, very bright, very intelligent man.

Behrens: Let's talk about how this applies to the culture here. That NPR staff survey was very interesting on the positive side because of the extraordinary pride people have working here. And they seem to have a lot of confidence in their immediate supervisors. But beyond that, they're suspicious and skeptical and perhaps ignorant about what other people are doing in other departments. And they have a lot of problems with the way promotions are handled. What did that survey tell you?

Lewis: It told me a lot of things. People tell you how they feel, very candidly, and you have to weigh that and decide how you do the greatest good for the greatest number. But [the consultant who did the survey] also detected what she called "a culture of complaint." People have complaints, and some are legitimate and maybe some are not. This is a very intelligent, creative group of people, so they express themselves very well.

The survey told me there is a history here of people not communicating with each other, of people not having sensitivity for others. People are very suspicious. For some, management is something to be frowned upon, not something to be supported: "I'd much rather be an individual operator and not be involved in a team."

Behrens: That's journalists for you.

Lewis: If I look at it from a manager's point of view, I'd say we probably didn't do a good job of following through on what we said we were going to do. We were not consistent in our management principles. And managers have to be consistent if you're going to have a group of employees that are going to be productive and hopefully happy.

Before I came here, the "Ghetto Life 101" issue came up. And it hit the newspaper. I was in the middle of the interview process for this job when that came up. So I did a little snooping around. And what I found was there was a group of minority employees, mostly African-American, who felt that "Ghetto Life 101" portrayed the African-American community negatively and was something NPR should not have done. And they felt [the reporters were] young kids in the projects in Chicago, and NPR or its producer had positioned these kids to face danger.

I found there was more to their concerns. Because when I looked at "Ghetto Life 101"--and I think it's been borne out--it was very good journalism. But if you peeled it all back, you could say the minority staff members weren't involved in the process of determining the content and the direction of the program. Now, I'm not a journalist. But that's a principle that could be used as a basis going forward.

Behrens: To anticipate this kind of feeling? Sensitivity toward members of your staff who might want to be involved?

Lewis: That's right. Understanding that you're dealing with African-Americans, poor communities, the ghetto. You need to touch base with people right inside the building and others who have a view. And that opinion should be respected. And that's beginning to happen.

Behrens: Have you seen people take the time to do that kind of consulting in any other program decisions?

Lewis: It's happening in terms of hiring people. We are using different methods today. We are hiring people, mid-level and above, by having a team approach. We'll bring in several people from News, maybe [new Human Resources Vice President] Kathleen Jackson or someone else from outside, and we'll say, "Here's a job description, we're looking for 'X,' what do we need?"

And it's worked. It worked with the hiring of Jeffrey Dvorkin, Kathleen Jackson and Neal Jackson. It worked for the new director of news staffing [Cheryl Hampton]. We're doing it for the corporate communications hire. Again, it's the principle of getting input from a diverse group of people. And I'm sure that's happening on the programmatic side.

Behrens: Discrimination lawsuits are being filed at an alarming rate. Sandra [Rattley-Lewis] filed one a month ago [news story]; two others, from Renee Pringle and Preston Brown, reportedly are on the way. This must be hard for you to deal with.

Lewis: They're very difficult. They're very difficult. I take my job very seriously. As a c.e.o. here I do not and will not tolerate discrimination. As an African-American, I know what discrimination is about. It just will not be tolerated.

I also know what's needed to manage effectively. And you have to be fair in the application of policies. You have to have principles, procedures and you have to be consistent in their application. Sometimes lawsuits are going to be filed. That's just a way of life.

Behrens: But this is an awful lot. I mean, this is an epidemic of lawsuits.

Lewis: Well, Steve, I thoroughly disagree with you.

Behrens: Really?

Lewis: That's horrible for a journalist to even put the label on it!

Renee Pringle and Preston Brown have filed some informal papers. There's been no lawsuit. Sandra has filed a lawsuit; we don't know where that's going. Sunni Khalid's is in arbitration; don't know where that's going. Many of them have been settled. So I don't know what you're talking about--"an epidemic." Yes, people have concerns. And yes, people have issues. But I don't think we can then interpret that there's an epidemic of racial discrimination rampant at National Public Radio. That's just not the case.

Behrens: I wasn't saying that. I was saying there is an epidemic of lawsuits.

Lewis: Well, I disagree with that, too.

Conciatore: We have tried to get a sense of how the experience of NPR may compare to what's going on in other news organizations. And the information just isn't out there.

Lewis: Well, I can tell you one! I went to visit Don Graham at the Washington Post. We're old, old friends, and he said, "Well, I'll be happy to tell you what I know because we probably made every mistake in the book." He gave me a sense of how they've dealt with the issue. Here's what you can do with resources: He put a news person, Michael Getler, in charge of the area, and he reports directly to Don Graham. And they set up a number of offices under Getler, including recruiting and hiring. Then they moved into training, career development and affirmative action. They even contracted with a school in Northern Virginia to train journalists.

So the Post made a commitment to get at these problems not just on the surface. People are going to file lawsuits, but that's a surface issue that will be handled in the courts. There are some subsurface issues--cultural issues, people issues--that have to be handled.

Why did I hire Kathleen Jackson? Because there are procedures and policies that need to be instituted and applied fairly. You've got to hold managers accountable for how they treat people. We're developing a whole accountability process, from top level down. Part of our managers' merit pay will be determined by how they're treating people. Are they promoting them? Are they training them? Are they counseling them? How are they doing in relationship to the people in their units? This is part of the job.

I'm intent on doing something about the subsurface issues. I am serious about making things right inside NPR. And when I say that, that's not admitting that we discriminate. That will be decided in courts or informally. What it's saying is, people are unhappy. People have issues, and we've got to find out why.

Behrens: This unhappiness apparently showed up in the survey. The percentage of minority staffers giving unfavorable responses to several questions, mostly related to promotions, was about ten points higher than for whites.

Lewis: I couldn't doubt that data. The question to ask yourself is why is this true? Is this true? If it's true, then what do we do about it?

Conciatore: What's your sense?

Lewis: My sense is, there may be some truth. My sense is, you also have to look at the realities of life that you've got more than 400 people, and you've got only so many jobs. OK. If I don't get that next promotion, or even considered for it, does that mean I have been mistreated for whatever reason? You know, there's a lot of competition for very few spots.

Behrens: And nobody's leaving.

Lewis: You got it. Now there's another thing that I think is important: even after you get procedures and processes working, everybody can't get promoted. But you can enrich jobs and experiences. So you tell managers to look for those opportunities and also some people who have more than one skill. I could be doing a great computer thing, but I've got a journalism degree. Did anybody know that? I know engineering but I also know something about marketing. Did anybody know that? Promotions are not the only way to proceed in a company.

So there's some realities I've got to deal with. If there are real discrepancies, why are they there? Are the discrepancies there because I'm black or Hispanic? If that's the problem, we've got to change it. But if its there because of other reasons, than I've got to find that out, too.

Behrens: One answer you could give to these complaints is that we disappoint all our employees on an equal opportunity basis.

Lewis: That's too flip for me. This is serious, Steve. This subject is dear to me. You asked me how I felt about it. As an African-American I do not like discrimination complaints! Nor do I tolerate discrimination. It is not comfortable. So I don't joke about it. I respect people's feelings and I respect their right to file a lawsuit. As a lawyer I respect that. But I've got to correct it. If there's a problem, it will be corrected. I don't get flip on this subject.

Behrens: A major reason for having diversity on staff, in addition to fairness, is to give NPR a better chance of having a diverse audience and to serve more people. But that objective seems further away every year as stations focus their programming for better service on their core audience. They can pick up only marginal numbers of people who are younger or black on the fringe. Is this destined to be all there is to public radio? Or is there a chance of building a second and a third network that will have different appeals to different groups?

Lewis: The answer is yes. But it goes back to resources. Your core is your core. Your distribution system is 590 member stations. Multi-streams of programming is absolutely the way to go, possibly through multi distribution systems. Fascinating opportunities to increase audience and diversity, probably even bring in revenue.

The one distribution system we have that works, the member stations, are our core, and we've got to grow it. And there are other distribution systems, a la the Internet. But that gets scary to stations; they wonder, "is NPR going to forsake us?" No, I'd be a fool. Two-thirds of my budget comes from member stations, so knowing the marketplace and my customers, I will be committed to the core. The question is, can we supplement that?

Behrens: You have the core of a new stream potentially among the black-controlled stations, particularly at black colleges. Now, there's not many, but there could be more urban stations that would be the core of a new stream that would be broadcast or partially broadcast/Internet. Is it close enough to viable to put money into it?

Lewis: It comes back to simple economics. Yes, those are possibilities, but it takes resources. We started a station in Prairie View, Tex., and it's an NPR-member station at a predominantly black college. Catherine Fraser in Shreveport put a translator at Grambling State, a predominantly black college. They're going very well. The college communities and surrounding communities appreciate the news programs and NPR. Now if want to get that college audience, you're probably going to have to do some other kinds of programs. Again, resources!

I'm not sure our public really understands what a c.e.o. does. The job is not only internal, with all the issues you talked about; it's also about a network of 590 member stations that feel they own the network and own you and own the board and have control and influence, and they do. It's about a group of constituents on Capitol Hill who provide a very needed subsidy for this industry. And it's about 17 million listeners a week. It is a very complicated system! And I have to manage it.

And what I come down to is, how do I not only continue and advance what I inherited, but how do I grow it?

America One--the project we have with PRI. A great idea! But we're having trouble sustaining it! Why? The model that we have in America doesn't necessarily work in Europe. Listener-supported radio in Europe is not understood.

Behrens: You put some staff time and money into the African-American research project. Last year, Sandra Rattley-Lewis suggested that some programming would come out of the findings. What are your plans to build on that research?

Lewis: Excellent research. We're using parts of it as we think through our diversity initiatives, our audience development initiatives. The research confirmed that NPR can find listeners in the African-American community from the same demographic that supports us in white America. If you've got awareness, branding, marketing, you can make it happen. Same educational and income level, and you market the hell out of it. It probably hasn't been done.

Conciatore: But have you allocated more resources to that?

Lewis: Well, we want to. But I'm not so sure that it's there in the budget. We've had to continually cut back. We've had to continually balance, cut back on everybody's projects to balance the budget. Resources! We do a lot with a little. NPR has a revenue problem. We've got a great brand, but very few people know about it. I saw some numbers--about 18 percent of adults, prodded, recognize the NPR brand, but you've got to give them some aids to recognize NPR. It's a good brand! But how many people know us? Six percent of radio listeners listen to NPR across the country. We're putting a little money into awareness and visibility campaigns, but they don't give immediate returns.

Behrens: NPR continues to win prizes by the armload, but there's also been a refrain of disappointment about ATC and Morning Edition. In the survey of news staffers 60 percent said the network is afraid to take risks. One staffer said there's a widespread feeling that both the big newsmagazines are utterly exhausted. Do you think they need fine tuning or a bigger jolt?

Lewis: That's a difficult question because I don't participate in the editorial decisions. I expect Jeffrey Dvorkin, once he gets his feet wet, will give me a sense of what's needed. So I'll depend on Jeffrey to give me the insights.

Jeffrey's got a lot going, and he's doing a terrific job. But we're stretched. Our people are doing a lot. The 5 a.m. Morning Edition, 4 p.m. ATC.

Behrens: Your news executives, Bill Buzenberg and other people, have tended to compare NPR news to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Those are exceptional news organizations, but there's a view that NPR ought to provide a clearer alternative, less comfortable with the status quo. Should NPR be doing something other than a brilliantly crafted audio version of those newspapers?

Lewis: We have become, in my judgment, a premier news organization in this country. And it is a real coup for this company. So if we're compared to good newspapers in terms of quality, that's exciting. Should we be more? You never want to minimize quality. But you also want to stimulate people and to remember your public mission. And our public mission was based on education, on stimulating people to think, to be on the cutting edge. And I don't think we're going to lose that.

Behrens: A person who's been interviewing people at stations for months has found that station people have clear ideas about how their stations can grow and where they're going, but don't have a clear sense about the whole of public radio. Where is the field going nationally?

Lewis: I'm not sure too many people know. We'll look at the future during the board retreat in November. I can give you one sense of how I anticipate the future--we need to work more closely with stations in relationship to local programming. Jeffrey understands that clearly.

We're missing something here. What will we chart for the future? A closer collaboration, on news particularly. There's a gold mine there. Maybe some gaps in staffing, possibly in the quality of certain local institutions because their staffs are small and inexperienced. But maybe that's where we can come in and work together. That local connection--not many media are there. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney--these conglomerates are not interested in the local community--except as customers. So we have an opportunity.