271–280 of 1001 posts
How on earth can anyone say "falsely labeled"? NPR does get money from the federal government, that is an undisputable fact. How are they not "state-affilated"? I don't care how small a % of the budget is money from the government. The fact they take any money at all from the gov makes them sate-affilated.
just slap that label on every single food product.
Here's what NPR's own website says about their 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)" "The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for…
>On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.
It is irrelevant to most of the controversy, however. The original Twitter label declared that NPR did not have editorial independence from the government.
How on earth can anyone say "falsely labeled"? NPR does get money from the federal government, that is an undisputable fact. How are they not "state-affilated"? I don't care how small a % of the budget is money from the government. The fact they take any money at all from the gov makes them sate-affilated.
Let's leave out the Elno companies that take gov money hand over fist, why is this label not applied to every company that gets tax benefits, took out govt loans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In their rebuttal [0] to this, they cited a statement from the White House Press Secretary: > When asked about Twitter's decision during the White House's daily briefing, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to address Twitter's content rules specifically. But she also defended NPR's journalism. > "There is no doubt of the independence of NPR journalists," Jean-Pierre said. "If you've ever been on the receivin…
How ironic that NPR uses the state's talking points to argue they're not affiliated with the state.
So much of this article reads like an op-ed that I can't take it seriously. Edit: for the downvoters, some excerpts: > The BBC exchange showed Musk as alternately conciliatory and erratic. According to whom? > He also said that he's sleeping on a couch at work, that he followed through on his promise to purchase Twitter only because a judge forced him to, and that he should stop tweeting after 3 a.m. this is a lot to…
> It receives less than 1 percent Why do they keep saying they receive almost nothing, yet at the same time say government funding is essential to their operation?
Because every penny counts. What business would turn around and say : "We don't need that 1%, you can have it back". It's state affiliated. Like Tesla. Like any company who received covid relief. Tax breaks etc. Less than 1 percentage is simply not influential. It's disingenuous to say it's owned by the government.
> What business would turn around and say : "We don't need that 1%, you can have it back".
The one which would try to claim independence and non-influence from said entity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should consider the context of using that label on Twitter, not just the label name itself. State-affiliated label on Twitter means something as "biased", it's not used on its pure definition in a vacuum. That's the problem.
NPR is biased though. Extremely so.
Extremely biased is Jon Stewart, a person who does a news broadcast with the express purpose to take a stance and say something.
How on earth can anyone say "falsely labeled"? NPR does get money from the federal government, that is an undisputable fact. How are they not "state-affilated"? I don't care how small a % of the budget is money from the government. The fact they take any money at all from the gov makes them sate-affilated.
> The fact they take any money at all from the gov makes them sate-affilated. In that case, very nearly every business (including mom and pop shops) is "state affiliated" and one has to ask why NPR is being singled out for this.
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…
> no mention of Mastodon in this announcement Mastodon blew its moment. It could have eaten Twitter’s lunch. But onboarding—specifically, choosing a server—was too tedious for non-niche adoption.
Mastodon's real problem in my opinion is that its primary audience today doesn't actually want anyone new to join - it's VERY toxic for newcomers who don't fit a specific mold. It's a shame, cause we really do need something new.
I'm hoping some of the new decentralized ones take off.
Edit: I think the comment about this being survivor bias is fair, but I still believe the community itself is a bigger hurdle for Mastodon than the signup flow