NPR Stops Publishing to Twitter
view.nl.npr.org
view.nl.npr.org
https://deadline.com/2023/04/pbs-off-twitter-like-npr-after-...
> On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
"Less than 1%" is still more than 0. Sounds like NPR is, in part, Government-funded Media, making the Twitter label accurate, at least on face value. If they don't want to be labeled as such, they can't accept government funding. I'm sure if the US government attached strings to their money, NPR would roll over and do whatever is asked.
I've never heard anyone ever report that NPR has answered to the Federal government in any manner regarding their reporting.
How much are they willing to bite the hand that feeds them. It might be a small percentage but it makes part of their budget.
I see strings: the government wants you to buy a house, buy an electric car, and give to charity. You can't claim those tax deductions and credits until you've done those things.
But the crux of the issue is the question "does a small amount of federal money influence NPR". I think the answer is "it does not". I've listened to NPR and read NYT, WSJ, WashPo for years and I've never heard a peep about the federal money influencing NPR.
The OP is stating there are strings attached and NPR answers to the Feds. I've never seen one iota of that in my entire life.
What do you base this on?
Wasn't the COVID stimulus tax payer money handed out without stipulations?
So if the whole point is that the money comes with stipulations, this seems to be fulfilled without a need for hidden content control through the state. Shouldn't we, as per Occams Razor, not assume that NPR really has creative control?
As a thought experiment let's imagine a parallel universe where we replace NPR with RT. Now imagine a Russian HN where two people are having a similar discussion about RT being Russian state-sponsored media. In that context would Occam's Razor apply? And if not, why? Pointing to Western fact-checkers isn't going to convince a Russian living in Russia any more than an American pointing to fact-checkers from RT is going to persuade an American. They've been indoctrinated by the public school system from an early age.
In this imaginary universe Russia still doesn't have a 1A, but even without one, it doesn't follow that RT wouldn't be able to exert the same creative control as NPR. Any fact that could be seen to reflect poorly on the government is very easy to omit without compromising control and ensures no direct or indirect evidence of collusion.
Another option would be to rely on a neutral third party. The problem with that is if the majority of institutions are already captured, a third party reporting the truth has to overcome an overwhelming counter-narrative of "fact-checkers" and imbeciles parroting rhetoric like "surely all of these people can't be wrong" and other appeals to authority.
I'm not entirely convinced this is true, but suppose so. How would you go about proving or disproving the validity of this capture from within the system?
If NPR was as upstanding as some want to believe, and if this money isn't meaningful, then it should be easy for NPR to give the money back and distance themselves in a way that leaves no room for question.
NPR's actions demonstrate how corrupt and depraved they are.
The enemy of the people deserve everything that happens to them.
The real issue (and the purpose of the label, at least before it was corrupted by Musk) is whether the government has editorial control over the journalism, which they clearly don’t for NPR.
Calling NPR “the enemy of the people” is some Orwellian-level bullshit.
Are you equally outraged at RT's Russia state-affiliated media label?
Either way I'm not going to engage with you further.
edit: also, it wasn't "being applied consistently" until they fixed it, as I mentioned in the grandparent post. RT and NPR are fundamentally different, and Twitter even recognized that by changing NPR's label while keeping RT's the same.
I urge you to reconsider and continue this discussion so we both can learn what exactly is that threshold to be regarded as state-sponsored in your view. Is it 0.0001%, 10%, 51%?
The inescapable fact of the matter is the onus is on NPR to absolve themselves of their conflict of interest. Their failure to do so is evidence in and of itself of their corruption. There's no way to snake and weasel out of this.
I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives. If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas I have to conclude:
NPR is the enemy of the people and they deserve everything that happens to them.
No. Goodbye.
I find NPR news to be the most balanced news radio out there.
But when those responsible for reporting on the powerful choose to accept financial contributions from the powerful, then what else do you call it except for corruption and depravity?
If you're going to say there's no influence here, you also concede the president has no influence on the make up of the Supreme Court. It's the exact same process.
In fact, the only references I can find to the CPB attempting to influence editorial decisions at NPR were a series of incidents that happened during a Republican administration, and the actions were found to be in violation of the law, and one of the board members resigned as a result.
What uh... what are you expecting to happen to them, that they will deserve?
We've been building https://www.forth.news.
It's a news feed, but for news -- populated exclusively by journalists. Anyone can sign up and follow along, but no misinfo, no spam, no hate speech -- just fact-based reporting.
Would love to hear your thoughts.