Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

2022-11-07 wrote: post #16

This is not a very convincing defense. Most foreign outlets Twitter and US media label state-affiliated are not directly controlled by the state. It's more like, hey, this institution gets a lot of its funding from, or has close ties to, the state, so just watch out for that which is 100% true here. NPR was literally created by an act of congress. You can't be honest and say in good faith it's not state affiliated.

> Most foreign outlets Twitter and US media label state-affiliated are not directly controlled by the state. It's more like, hey, this institution gets a lot of its funding from, or has close ties to, the state

Twitter directly states that the label refers to editorial control, and that even state funded outlets where the state does not exercise editorial control will not get the label (the BBC is explicitly given as an example.)

So, no, your explanation of the labeling logic is not accurate.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#42

Post by dingosity »

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #12

Youtube also labels NPR. Twitter is correct in labeling them state affiliated.

Yes. Youtube applies the label "NPR is an American Public Broadcasting service." It applies the label "VOA is funded in whole or in part by the American government" to the VOA channel. Note that the two labels are not the same. Interestingly, it does not label the @DeptOfDefense account at all.

And it's not just US institutions, they label the Al Jazeera English channel with "Al Jazeera is funded in whole or in part by the Qatari government."

I think what I'm saying is, if YouTube believed NPR got all of it's funding from the US Government, it would label it differently than it does. And YouTube's labeling seems to be incomplete (otherwise certainly the department of defense channel would have a label.) Which leads to my conclusion... maybe you shouldn't depend on YouTube as the arbiter of what is and what isn't funded by various governments.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#43

Post by krapp »

vannevar wrote: post #20
nyerp wrote: post #15

The article states "More than 99% of NPR's funds do not come from federal sources" and yet elaborates "NPR ... gets the bulk of its direct financial support from two sources: sponsorships and fees paid by hundreds of member stations." How are those member stations funded? Through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives a $465 million federal appropration each year. So can the Federal Government exert…

By this same logic, all television networks are "state-affiliated media", because they all depend on local stations that hold federally-granted broadcast licenses. So add Fox Broadcasting, NBC, CBS, etc., etc. to your list.

The logic being applied here is the baseline of American conservative logic that all mainstream media, excepting Fox News of course, is controlled by an organized leftist cabal that takes their orders directly from the Democratic Party. They mistrust NPR and PBS in particular (and have for decades,) considering them nothing but organs for Marxist propaganda.

As with the "Twitter Files" this is just an attempt to normalize right-wing conspiracy theory under the facade of neutrality.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#44

Post by fwlr »

egberts1 wrote: post #19
fwlr wrote: post #17

NPR makes a good case that the “funded by the state” clause isn’t applicable to them. Directly is knockdown, they have that “less than 1%” statistic. Indirect funding clause seems like a wash - they are supported by member fees, which some members pay with state grants and others pay with revenue. Distribution is also clearly not controlled by the state, production is less clear but probably still not materially so.…

Please ignore the $465M that NPR affiliated stations received from Federal government. See also https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... where NPR makes the opposite argument, namely, that "Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR."

That $465M number is how much government grant money goes to the group “stations who are paying NPR member fees”. The two obvious questions are 1. how much is that as a fraction of the total income of the group “stations who are paying NPR member fees”, and 2. how much of NPR’s revenue is from member fees. Searching around, the first is variously quoted as 6%, 11.4%, or 16%, while second seems to be consistently quoted as about 50%. So the loose bounds on indirect Federal funding for NPR are “more than 3% and less than 16%” - not a very compelling fraction, but not insignificant, so therefore it’s a wash.

In any case, Federal funding is just one clause of the “state controlled media” qualification and the argument for or against NPR receiving this status largely rests on the other clause that is concerned with state editorial control. This is a more subjective question and one that Elon (and thus Twitter) appears to have answered in the affirmative.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#45

Post by vuln »

dingosity wrote: post #38
vuln wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The federal government does not exercise any editorial control over NPR other than by the mechanisms that apply to Fox, CNN, Newsmax, or any other "private" media organization. So NPR hires former IC members and then utilizes them to downplay or hype a story? I mean “give an analysis”…

It turns out that many people leave the intelligence community each year. Many of them move on to other jobs (i.e. - they don't retire, they change jobs.) Some of these jobs are at NPR. What's your point?

Some of those jobs are at NPR and other News Networks. Some of those jobs are at all the social networks… Some of those are at think tanks… It seems like where ever there is a choke point to information you’ll find a bunch of IC members. It’s just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#46

Post by plandis »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #6
S33V wrote: post #3

Here's Twitter's documentation on how they identify state-affiliated media[1]. This excerpt makes the decision seem outside of the defined process: State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entitie…

Could the British government influence BBC stories if they really went of the rails and attacked the govt? I am not British and don't have a good feel for the BBC, though I am fairly confident NPR can do government hit stories and such.

Didn’t the BBC recently take a soccer announcer off the air after he was critical of the conservative government?

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#47

Post by oska »

dingosity wrote: post #38
vuln wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The federal government does not exercise any editorial control over NPR other than by the mechanisms that apply to Fox, CNN, Newsmax, or any other "private" media organization. So NPR hires former IC members and then utilizes them to downplay or hype a story? I mean “give an analysis”…

It turns out that many people leave the intelligence community each year. Many of them move on to other jobs (i.e. - they don't retire, they change jobs.) Some of these jobs are at NPR. What's your point?

This is highly disingenuous. Former employees of intelligence agencies have no place in employed, paid roles in corporate or state media, because the possibility that they are still working to advance the agencies propaganda or protect their past actions and present causes is way too high.

If they like, they can set up as an independent journalist or commentator, as Ray McGovern has done, where they are invited on as guests or they independently publish their own material. But that's it. No paid commentator/opinion roles, no senior management roles (Jim Baker at Twitter) in the media should be open to them. And any state or corporate media organisation who employs them only confirm their role of being conduits for propaganda.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#48

Post by oska »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #23

Is there a list of similar media companies? NPR, BBC, RNZ, NHK, LRT are pretty much my goto’s, but would love to find more, esp. in English.

> but would love to find more, esp. in English

RT, Press TV, the Global Times

And I'm not trying to be cute here. If you're only looking at Western state media (all that you've listed) then you're getting a very one-sided view of the world.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#49

Post by revelio »

vannevar wrote: post #20
nyerp wrote: post #15

The article states "More than 99% of NPR's funds do not come from federal sources" and yet elaborates "NPR ... gets the bulk of its direct financial support from two sources: sponsorships and fees paid by hundreds of member stations." How are those member stations funded? Through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives a $465 million federal appropration each year. So can the Federal Government exert…

By this same logic, all television networks are "state-affiliated media", because they all depend on local stations that hold federally-granted broadcast licenses. So add Fox Broadcasting, NBC, CBS, etc., etc. to your list.

Broadcast licensing isn't the same thing as direct subsidization, though.

Re: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media', which is untrue

#50

Post by lowkey »

Quote from NPR’s own website[0]:

“Public Radio and Federal Funding

Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.

Public radio stations receive annual grants directly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) that make up an important part of a diverse revenue mix that includes listener support, corporate sponsorship and grants. Stations, in turn, draw on this mix of public and privately sourced revenue to pay NPR and other public radio producers for their programming.

These station programming fees comprise a significant portion of NPR's largest source of revenue. The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution.”

[0] https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...

Post reply on HN