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

NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#121

Post by ProAm »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #79

I listen to NPR station in the car. Anecdotally, very little of the content is true journalism; much of it is effectively op-ed. That's not necessarily a bad thing, provived you understand what you're consuming. The state-funded tag is a bit much. But to claim NPR is a pure journalism play isn't accurate either.

I dont think they claim to be pure journalism:

"NPR is an independent, nonprofit media organization that was founded on a mission to create a more informed public. Every day, NPR connects with millions of Americans on the air, online, and in person to explore the news, ideas, and what it means to be human. Through its network of member stations, NPR makes local stories national, national stories local, and global stories personal."

[A] https://www.npr.org/about/ [B] https://www.npr.org/ethics/

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#122

Post by [deleted] »

KyeRussell wrote: post #114
md_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/12/julianborger "Cable Network News (CNN) and National Public Radio, (NPR) denied that the "psy-ops" officers influenced news coverage and said the internships had been stopped as soon as senior managers found out . For its part, the army said the programme was only intended to give young army media specialists some experience of how the news industry functioned." That...see…

The point they’re making is the point they’re making. Take it exactly for what it is. If the same thing was reported to have happened In Russia, it wouldn’t be terribly controversial to label the media outlet “state-sponsored”.

[deleted]

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#123

Post by waboremo »

nailer wrote: post #61
hidden80 wrote: post #3

It's so wild witnessing the degradation of Twitter.

[flagged]

Because the "government funded media" was a last minute save, the original "state affiliated media" is a false claim. Surely you grasp the difference between the two labels? The latter has corporate and editorial control in case you were unaware.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#124

Post by retrac »

anoonmoose wrote: post #82
local_crmdgeon wrote: post #41

[flagged]

It disregards editorial control, which was part of how Twitter used to decide this. https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https:/help.twitt... "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

Whether CBC is actually neutral and non-partisan is something of a perennial political issue in Canada. I personally would say it is. A lot of the country disagrees. The opposition party wishes to cancel it. Opinion polls indicate the public believes it to be the most partisan major broadcaster in Canada.

Twitter will be wading into some very turbulent waters if they're going to start deciding which public broadcasters are "editorially independent" and which are not. Especially since there's no real consensus on the question in some of the countries which run them.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#125

Post by trasz3 »

sp332 wrote: post #44
sneak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

State funded is not the same as state affiliated. The government doesn't have any editorial control of NPR.

>The government doesn't have any editorial control of NPR.

Yeah, it's not like the government literally put their own guy as NPRs CEO: https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/management-team/john-lansin...

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#126

Post by stametseater »

anoonmoose wrote: post #80
kome wrote: post #34

> citing the social media platform's decision to label NPR "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries. it's indeed a shame they do it for chinese and russian companies, but not the BBC or western european broadcasters... hell, not even Radio Free Europe is marked as "state-affiliated media". If not them, who?

Twitter themselves had a guide that explained why NPR and BBC were not labelled as such, which has been revised since, but is still archived. "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy." https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https:/help.twitt...

> Twitter themselves had a guide that explained why NPR and BBC were not labelled as such

> "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

That explains the what, not the why. It says they aren't going to consider BBC and NPR as state-affiliated, but not why they aren't going to consider them as state-affiliated. "Editorial independence" is a meaningless superlative that cannot be empirically measured through any means available to twitter.

The "why" is because the "state affiliated" label was meant to be innuendo for "untrustworthy" and twitter, under previous management, did not consider NPR and BBC untrustworthy.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#127

Post by zackees »

fknorangesite wrote: post #105
nailer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because "state-affiliated" specifically means the state has editorial control - which is certainly not the case here - not merely that they provide some funding.

[dead]

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#128

Post by anoonmoose »

trasz3 wrote: post #113
anoonmoose wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter themselves had a guide that explained why NPR and BBC were not labelled as such, which has been revised since, but is still archived. "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy." https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https:/help.twitt...

Editorial independence in action: https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/management-team/john-lansin...

you are asserting that having ever worked with the government necessarily means that you are silently, privately doing their editorial bidding on their behalf and I do not think that is reasonable or appropriate

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#129

Post by ceejayoz »

kome wrote: post #118
md_ wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries have publicly funded/editorially independent broadcasters. Of the below, none seem to be listed as "state affiliated": https://twitter.com/bbc https://twitter.com/deutschewelle https://twitter.com/srf https://twitter.com/radiofrance https://twitter.com/CBCNews

They put it for BBC now. And that's good.

Musk disagrees.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65248196

> Mr Musk said Twitter was adjusting the label for the BBC to "publicly-funded". "We're trying to be accurate," he said.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#130

Post by _zn02 »

stametseater wrote: post #126
anoonmoose wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter themselves had a guide that explained why NPR and BBC were not labelled as such, which has been revised since, but is still archived. "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy." https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https:/help.twitt...

> Twitter themselves had a guide that explained why NPR and BBC were not labelled as such > "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy." That explains the what , not the why . It says they aren't going to consider BBC and NPR as state-affiliated, but not why they aren't…

I think it explains the why quite clearly- editorial independence. It's a big deal. NPR is allowed to be critical of the US government in a way that RT is not.
Post reply on HN