Musk admits NPR isn’t state-affiliated
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
What happens if you receive government funds and grants in prior years?
Who decides these definitions :)
In my personal opinion: If you receive govt funding YoY, a public notice should be given - regardless of the politics.
What needs to be marked is “does the government have editorial control of produced content”. Unless you think there’s no difference between government operated news in china or Iran and “radio station that gets an annual grant”
Receiving money from a government is neither necessary nor sufficient to qualify as state-affiliated according to Twitter's own definition [0] (emphasis added):
> State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.
So for media to count as state-affiliated the state must have control over editorial content. Receiving funds can be one method by which control could be exerted, but it is insufficient in and of itself to cross the threshold of state control.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230409213539/https://help.twit...
In addition, the definition Twitter gives requires that the items in the list be done in service of the central requirement. In other words, merely having financial resources be provided by the government is not enough for a media organization to qualify as "state-affiliated" - those financial resources must be given to exercise control over editorial content. If control is not exercised over editorial content, then by Twitter's definition it does not matter that the government provides funds to the media organization.
It clearly says that control can be exercised even through indirect political pressure. It is obviously intended to also apply to situations where there is the superficial appearance of editorial independence but no actual independence.
Not biting the hand that feeds is a common instinct and it definitely affects what stories get published and how.
I'm pretty sure by the way that if someone tried to apply this same line of reasoning to, say, Russia Today, the same people up in arms about this would make the same argument I'm making.
I sure hope I do!
> It clearly says that control can be exercised even through indirect political pressure. It is obviously intended to also apply to situations where there is the superficial appearance of editorial independence but no actual independence.
This is true, but a statement that something can happen is very different from a statement that something does happen.
> Not biting the hand that feeds is a common instinct and it definitely affects what stories get published and how.
It's a nice-sounding generality, but I think there needs to be slightly more in the way of specifics if you want to claim it applies to NPR (or any other organization, really), especially considering the relatively low proportion of funding it receives from the government.
April 9th - https://web.archive.org/web/20230409213539/https://help.twit...
State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled. We will also add labels to Tweets that share links to state-affiliated media websites.
State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled.
State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.
State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled.
State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.
State Affiliated - China (April 8th - current): https://web.archive.org/web/20230408170835/https://help.twit...
State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their senior staff may be labeled.
State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.They receive tax payer money. That’s why the label was given.
Personally, I feel it’s appropriate. They can’t say they are independent is they receive govt funds.
Twitter has a definition for what they consider state-affiliated media. NPR doesn't fit this definition. Thus, if they brand them as state-affiliated, they are not going from their own definition, and they must have other reasons.
Why is it acceptable for Twitter to have a definition of state-affiliated media, and then apply the branding to a media organisation that doesn't fit this definition?
Or are you just saying that there isn't a difference between state-affiliated media, and state-funded media?
I am arguing that it’s fair. Whether it’s Fox News or Washing Post. If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms.
The title of the label is a different discussion in which I agree with your last sentence.
> If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms.
I fully agree, they should be labeled as per Twitter terms. The Twitter terms clearly stated that NPR was not an example of state-affiliated media. It's problematic that Twitter labeled in a way contrary to their terms.