I’m not sure what your argument is…
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.
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.