You should consider the context of using that label on Twitter, not just the label name itself. State-affiliated label on Twitter means something as "biased", it's not used on its pure definition in a vacuum. That's the problem.
But it doesn't matter; the government does not have any editorial control over NPR. That's what "state affiliated" means.
Until NPR starts including journalistoc voices that are critical of ESG, abortion access, and other pet projects the current administration is fond of then the designation is apt.
NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.
The harping on their bias in this thread is ridiculous, because unless the government is telling them what to write, it's entirely irrelevant.
> NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.
SO FUCKING WHAT. Maybe they're useless garbage now, maybe not, but either way that still doesn't make them a government mouthpiece.
Like I said, until they're critical of the administration like they were with Bush Jr, then they are nothing more than a mouthpiece of the current administration.
Don't pretend you don't know the difference.
Press secretary is doing just that. Sorry but your beloved party does just that.
I don't understand, the NPR bias was there when those were not pet projects of whatever government under Trump, correct? So why does a change in government then changes the stance of NPR if that stance was there before the current government took power?
Also, being critical of abortion access is simply stupid in 2023, it's founded on religious grounds and I don't think religion should be part of any social policy discussion... Requiring a journalistic institution to cater to "both sides" is either naive or absurdly stupid.
Extremely biased is Jon Stewart, a person who does a news broadcast with the express purpose to take a stance and say something.