By James C. King
Guest columnist

Late last month, National Public Radio issued a general statement to the public that Bob Edwards would soon be replaced as the host of Morning Edition. NPR postured this development as its response to changing needs, times, and challenges for public radio.

Their release certainly implied that this decision was supported by and endorsed by Bob himself. It also gave the distinct impression that NPR affiliate stations overwhelmingly supported this move. I have received and answered well more than 150 e-mails in just a few days; my staff and I have taken even more telephone calls and faxes from outraged listeners, some actually placing the blame on local stations for the move.

Much of what the public (and stations) has been told about this development appears to be incomplete and contradictory. I, for one, wholly object to this move by NPR and the horrible and ever-changing way in which the news is being presented to the public and to those of us serving as station managers.

I have served WVXU for nearly 28 years and it is impossible for me to convey my own sense of outrage and betrayal by the network we supposedly "own" as member stations.

Station managers were only informed about this decision an hour or so before the general public heard the news March 24. WVXU was never consulted in advance of this decision. I've subsequently learned that most stations I have associations with were not contacted as well. NPR claimed that this development was a "consultative effort" in concert with the wishes of member stations. It would be fascinating to learn just which stations, if any, were consulted. It most assuredly was not a universal poll of all member stations.

All of us have read the ever-changing NPR spin on why this was done. Initially, it was postured as a move to help NPR respond to the changing needs of public radio listeners. Since Morning Edition's audience has more than doubled in the last decade and I've heard not one member complain about Bob's on-air sound, I stand in utter amazement that this was the initial reason given. Further, if this were truly the case, one would expect that NPR would have a replacement plan set to go with Bob's departure. If these "changing needs" are so important and timely, why hasn't another firm plan been announced?

Shortly after the public learned of this development, station managers were sent a list of "talking points" that we were urged to use when responding to the concerns of listeners. This was infuriating. First, I don't agree with the decision. Second, I'm not about to take an action initiated by NPR and give it my personal sanction by echoing the network's line on the matter. When the "talking points" came across my desk I threw them in the wastebasket.

Even more maddening is an article that appeared in the March 30 New York Times, titled "NPR stations had pushed for change." When I read that article I was apoplectic. The tone of the piece read like a press release sanctioned by NPR. This newest spin represents yet another reshaping of NPR's initial statements issued on March 24-25.

I am not privy to the inner workings or dynamics within NPR. It doesn't matter anyway. Bob is the original and only host of Morning Edition. To millions of faithful listeners, Bob Edwards is the public identity of Morning Edition - the voice that has calmly anchored the news we've grown to depend on for 25 years. In my mind, it makes absolutely no sense to take the man, the voice, the identity of NPR's most popular program and usher him out of the anchor's chair when no solid reasons have been offered.

Listeners make financial pledges to individual public radio stations in order to keep valued local and national shows on the air. In turn, those stations pay NPR substantial fees to honor listeners' demands. The public outcry over NPR's peremptory "reassignment" of Bob Edwards raises a fundamental and troubling question: Whose interests does the network represent - those of a handful of NPR bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or those of 13 million Morning Edition listeners across America?

Here's the bottom line, from this end. I don't know why the network made this move. It's baffling. NPR's "handling" of the public outcry has been deplorable. It seems as though the storyline is changing and evolving with every passing day. I don't like any of this, and I don't like the fact that we, as paying affiliate stations and our members have been treated so cavalierly.

Despite the actions of National Public Radio, I sincerely hope that you'll continue supporting local public radio stations who are every bit as much a victim of this as you.

---

James C. King is director for broadcasting at WVXU 91.7 FM in Cincinnati.