PBS quits Twitter after being labeled ‘government-funded media’ | Hacker News Reader

PBS quits Twitter after being labeled ‘government-funded media’

theguardian.com

9 pointsisaacfrond11 comments

Important context.

https://www.pbs.org/foundation/areas-of-focus/sustaining-pbs...

> Because PBS is commercial-free, many people mistakenly believe public funding provides the bulk of our resources. In fact, federal funding provides only about 15% of the revenue for the public television system.

To me the label seems within the realm of reasonable descriptions.

How much of, let's say, SpaceX revenue is US government? How much of Lockheed-Martin's revenue is US government? Does that make either of them government-funded?

If they receive government funding, then yes to me, they are "government funded".

Is there a better label than government funded? Possibly, but it seems within a reasonable distance of accurate.

Excellent! The entire US aerospace industry, including SpaceX, is government funded! Every single "corporation" in that industry gets more federal funding than NPR!

Ok, great. They're all government funded.

Such an odd play for relevance and meaning by Twitter. They will not piss off people that they are directly beholden to, such that any attempt to shine a light at companies like PBS brings into direct question of why? With most answers not looking that good for Twitter, to be honest.

15% is a lot.

If you could lose one month of your salary unless you said one public good thing about your boss in a slideshow, would you do it?

A lot of people do much more than that for less.

It really isn't.

And do you have evidence of this accusation? Because, quite frankly, it comes across as less than good faith. I question the motive of Twitter's leadership far more than I do PBS. Moreso after this.

This information is relevant for people outside the US. Deutsche Welle, BBC and PBS will always be biased towards the policy of their countries.

Nonsense. At least as far as this funding goes. It is peanuts to satisfy some goals that are more often neutral to policy.

Much more concerning is when any single entity provides a large share of funding and control. Label accounts as "owned by rupert murdoch" or even bezos, for far more signal than publicly funded by taxes.

As well say, "enabled by government regulation of airways, roads, and general policing." True, but hardly relevant.

PBS is pro-establishment, not pro-government. Those are two different things in the US- the former is an ambiguous grouping of like-minded people who want the US to continue to be successful (through education, research, business), but also believe it's possible to criticize the government's policies. NPR and PBS trend liberal because the establishment is liberal-centrist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com