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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by bfeynman »

photochemsyn wrote: post #46

Well, there is an interesting history here. E.g. in 2000 NPR (and CNN) allowed the US Army's Psychological Operations division to place military members in the newsroom as interns as part of a media training program: https://fair.org/home/psyops-in-the-newsroom/ > "PSYOPS is a division of the U.S. Army mandated to “develop and disseminate propaganda designed to lower the morale” of “enemy forces,” and to “build suppo…

Isn't it interesting that a few months ago a few people in twitter spaces were shouting to the world that twitter ITSELF had backchannels to govt and payments and thus was also state affiliated media? What about that?

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

#142

Post by freitzkriesler2 »

fknorangesite wrote: post #111
yonaguska wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR is biased though. Extremely so.

Yes, everything and everyone is, because they are humans. But it doesn't matter ; the government does not have any editorial control over NPR. That's what "state affiliated" means.

You say this but the subject matter of their journalists implies certain preferences that are aligned with the government's.

Until NPR starts including journalistoc voices that are critical of ESG, abortion access, and other pet projects the current administration is fond of then the designation is apt.

NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.

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

#143

Post by rvz »

segasaturn wrote: post #9

I wonder if this will have any domino effect, right now the only thing holding Twitter together is its network effects. According to the article on NPR's site[0], they have 8.7 million followers and run 52 different accounts so Twitter is losing a pretty important partner. Also, no mention of Mastodon in this announcement. It sounds like they're just going to use Facebook for the time being. 0: https://www.npr.org/20…

> Also, no mention of Mastodon in this announcement. It sounds like they're just going to use Facebook for the time being.

I think it is time that we can call it a day after 7 years, and we should also admit that the Mastodon experiment has become unviable, unscalable, obsolete and already extinct as a serious alternative against Twitter. It had its slither of a chance, and it still failed.

Maybe a lesson in networks effects will tell you why the 220M+ daily active users on Twitter still continue to use the platform. Unsurprisingly.

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

#144

Post by trasz3 »

_zn02 wrote: post #130
stametseater wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Have you ever considered the possible difference between what's officially allowed and what's actually happening?

Nowadays, when information is abundant, individual stories don't matter all that much; what does matter is building the overall narrative. Allowing critical stories doesn't affect that.

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

#145

Post by freitzkriesler2 »

bfeynman wrote: post #138
freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #131

Talk about rage quitting. They'll be back. And whether it's unpopular or not, CPB gets federal and state grants for part of their operating budgets . Technically state funded or affiliated in the same way auto makers get government contracts. I don't know why they are mad about the designation. Whether it implies bias or not, it's true they get state funds, ergo they are state funded media.

Wait wasn't the whole debacle that Twitter had special access to govt and received money for them regarding postings? Isn't twitter then also state affiliated media?

Wahwahwhatabout! We're talking about NPR, not Twitter. And the designation doesn't matter.

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

#146

Post by ajford »

hermannj314 wrote: post #66

They were labeled as "state-affiliated media" and after a retraction, Twitter referred to them as "government-funded" On March 20th, NPR listed this retraction on their website "An earlier version of this story mistakenly said Musk bought Twitter for $44 million. In fact, he paid $44 billion." [1] Twitter can't make mistakes, but NPR makes dozens of them daily. Should we rage quit NPR everytime they issue a retractio…

It sure doesn't seem like a mistake. Twitter itself used to make the distinction between state-funded (without editorial control) and state-affiliated (where the state has editorial control) on their own Help Center [1].

They removed the distinction on 2023-04-07 [2], two days after they slapped the state-affiliated label on NPR. That timeline sure doesn't sound like Musk made a mistake and sought to correct it, but more like he swung his whiny authority around and then people had to scramble to retract/alter policies to fit with Musk's world view.

If it was a mistake, Twitter would have owned up to it instead of altering their policies to match the mistake.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https:/help.twitt...

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230407155944/https://help.twit...

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

#147

Post by md_ »

trasz3 wrote: post #137
md_ wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's funny that all the Americans/Russians commenting here seem to believe there are only two public broadcasters in the world: RT, and NPR. And that Twitter was merely being unfair by not labeling NPR as "state affiliated." ;) In fact, as I noted elsewhere in this thread, there are many (dozens?) of other public broadcasters around the world, most of which are not labeled as "state affiliated"--apparently in…

>Musk's eye of Sauron fell upon NPR--and only NPR, not Deutsche Welle or Radio France or CBC or BBC Well, sure, but you gotta start somewhere. At least this is a move in the right direction; let's hope for similar labelling for other media that deserve it.

I assume Musk will get distracted by something else--a bathroom-humor pun off the name of one of his companies, say, or realizing that 4/20 is just around the corner again, or the implacable, unconquerable, immutable existential sadness of realizing that he's truly alone in this world with nobody, despite all his wealth and power, whom he can trust truly loves him--before he realizes there are public broadcasters in other countries.

C'est la vie. It's hard being at the top (depending on the stock price on a given day).

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

#148

Post by zackees »

fknorangesite wrote: post #111
yonaguska wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR is biased though. Extremely so.

Yes, everything and everyone is, because they are humans. But it doesn't matter ; the government does not have any editorial control over NPR. That's what "state affiliated" means.

[dead]

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

#149

Post by justin66 »

Twitter will probably, eventually find a more appropriate label for high-quality public media sources, and NPR will probably find their way back, since it doesn't cost them anything. On the other hand, the current kerfuffle just scratches the surface of their current labeling approach's weirdness.

Propublica's twitter page is labelled "Media and News Company," but that's a label they applied to themselves, not something Twitter applies. Okay, fair enough. Some other for-profit or nonprofit news organizations don't have any labels at all, so clearly it's not mandatory. The distinction between something like Propublica and something like The Washington Post is significant to someone who cares about news, but maybe not to Twitter's censors.

Voice of America is still on there and is, reasonably, labelled "government-funded media." But BBC is not not labelled at all, with any label, because... Elon Musk liked their reporter? Or something?

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

#150

Post by fknorangesite »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #142
fknorangesite wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, everything and everyone is, because they are humans. But it doesn't matter ; the government does not have any editorial control over NPR. That's what "state affiliated" means.

You say this but the subject matter of their journalists implies certain preferences that are aligned with the government's. Until NPR starts including journalistoc voices that are critical of ESG, abortion access, and other pet projects the current administration is fond of then the designation is apt. NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.

Being biased or having a specific political stance is not the same thing as state affiliation; it's just ... (dis)agreeing with policies. Were they "state affiliated" during the Trump admin?

The harping on their bias in this thread is ridiculous, because unless the government is telling them what to write, it's entirely irrelevant.

> NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.

SO FUCKING WHAT. Maybe they're useless garbage now, maybe not, but either way that still doesn't make them a government mouthpiece.

Post reply on HN