If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding. Additionally, if there's no influence/bias, then why does it matter that their funding is disclosed to the reader?
Connotation is just as important as denotation when evaluating meaning and accuracy of statements. Engineers love to pretend otherwise - that's probably part of why we're engineers - but that doesn't make them right.
But I believe the label is more important than what some people fear other people would maybe perceive.
It receives DIRECT funding from the United States government.
Twitter was generous in changing the label from "State-affiliated" media (given that it was literally created by the US Government) to "Government-funded media".
There is no possible argument against the "Government-funded media" label that makes sense. They're government funded. NPR's parent company, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is also government funded. Neither of these funding points are debatable (aka Full stop).
When NPR runs their "ADM Supermarket to the World" spots, that is telling you who is really funding them and who to worry about exerting editorial control.
In fact there are still some families in Canada with noble titles, hearldry, etc., who are indeed affiliated with the Crown.
> Funding for NPR comes from [...other sources...] and annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Hmm, let's look into said Corporation:
> On February 26, 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR)
> The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.
> The CPB is governed by a nine-member board of directors selected by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate
I mean... If this wasn't "state-affiliated media" at its inception, I'm not entirely sure what is.
NPR show Frontline is a great place to start this education.
Attempting to place NPR and that kind of sentiment in the same conversation as anything other than a great example of how Gov't funds can be provided without such _control_ is disingenuous at best.
NPR != RT
Musk is in way over his head.
"closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position"
"an organization that is officially connected with or controlled by another, usually larger, organization"
dependent: "relying on another for support" (also uses of the words "need" and "requires")
I would agree with parent comment - NPR is not directly, closely affiliated with the state. And isn't in a subordinate position with the state. It has about 12% of its funding from tax dollars, but I think it'd likely exists without that.
I also agree with parent comment they are state funded, however, and anyone who had 12% of their income from a given source for free and no work would be biased and influenced to be friendly towards them. To suggest that the people who work at and run NPR are free from bias and influence is demonstrably not true, and so it also follows we can't assume they would approach their funding without bias.
Is the criteria money? coercion? backdoor-deals? bias?
As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money.
Control/Coercion seem more important, especially since Twitter has a separate category for media with government funding. (cf https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia... for both)
Twitter: “Financial Resource” Considering we do have a law around funding NPR and the company would be impacted of that funding went away, personally I see it as appropriate.
However, I also see it appropriate that Fox News and Washington Post get the same tag. (party political pressures)
Does the Whitehouse (in general) use press access passes as bartering chip, yes of course!
With that said, “state-affiliated” depends on criteria. Whether it’s agreed upon or not, Twitter set their criteria. Other outlets set their criteria as well…on news, politics, health, and illicit.
A large part of their funding comes from congress -> corporation for public broadcasting -> local NPR affiliates -> NPR.
It is indirect funding, yes, but they are very much funded by the US government.
"it was changed before this piece and before NPR decided to leave. Twitter acknowledged that label was incorrect and changed it. Then NPR had a temper tantrum and left and this piece implied they left over that label. It’s misleading at best"
Quoting https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
> On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.
In reality government funding accounts for much more than 1% of NPR's budget.
NPR itself [1] says that figure is 13 percent, counting state governments. In either case, I am comfortable that NPR is editorially independent but also comfortable saying that without government money, it's a podcast network.
The power of the purse is the power to pull strings even if that power is not currently being used, and even if the marionette would scream really loudly if the strings were pulled. I don't think "state-affiliated" was a fair label. "Government-funded" was, and NPR is damaging its credibility more than Twitter could by pitching a fit over it.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/12/1169269161/npr-leaves-twitter...
Your (and Elons) argument has shades of the famous ‘with us or against us’ line. Details matter.
I do agree social media companies should be categorized as a publisher - or content providers, but they are not. I think changing section 230 would solve a lot of problems by removing very specific legal protections, which news companies do not receive, and help prevent clear issues such as knowingly promoting false information.
There are those that disagree with me. Problems exist with any solution such as who should judge what should not be allowed and would the counter devolve into an organization that could control information dissemination? A valid point. I think the answer is already out there - a very low standard (or to say another way the high burden of proof required) current news organizations are held to by law, which most seem not to debate is too restrictive, or some line between nothing and that.
There is a lot of academic discourse on this topic and I recommend researching 230 more. It’s a fascinating policy debate with pros and cons on both sides. It was written in 1996, the year the palm pilot and the Pentium 166MHz processor was introduced.
This in itself should be enough to remove media organisation protections.
Ah, yes, the old "if I misrepresent the issue and assign a negative emotion to it, other people will see it as bad" trope. That's fun.
Do you have any evidence they find the contributions "embarrassing" as opposed to finding the label an intentionally-misleading dog whistle? Or is that not something that occurred to you?
This seems super far from what twitter is. Please explicitly explain how an AP story is in regards to twitter.
Twitter is a publisher, though (because of Section 230) they are not liable as a publisher for most of what they publish under US law.
Making NPR display its funding sources for all to see is a good thing (although "state-affiliated" was not the right label). Not making other high profile accounts do the same is pure hypocrisy.
> It's a distraction.
Categorizing an argument doesn't provide justification for that categorization.
Maybe it needs a "NewsCorp/Murdoch affiliated" label.
This is not some conspiracy theory. It was very much out in the open.
Even more recently, the house speaker gave Fox preferred access to the Jan 6th video.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Twitter is a media company, a publisher with an editorial voice that we have to assume is independent from the Saudi government or any government funding the owner's other businesses.
That doesn't mean Twitter shouldn't correctly label state funded media.