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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by geraldwhen »

iamerroragent wrote: post #436
908B64B197 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should Elon's account (or SpaceX or Telsa) have the same label because of their significant government funding? They aren't trying to hide it. The NASA contracts are very much public.

Here is how NPR is funded: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

Member stations are federally funded. Member stations pay NPR.

To say that NPR doesn’t receive a significant portion of its budget from the federal government is a lie. This same argument is made whenever a politico mentions cutting funding to NPR. There is a large push to claim that NPR receives very little funding and it’s irrelevant to the network.

But you can’t have it both ways. The lady doth protest too mightily.

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

#453

Post by AnthonyMouse »

binarymax wrote: post #351
smotched wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"media"

Twitter is a media company. EDIT: lots of discussion around this. Twitter is literally a social media company. You can split hairs on whether the “media” part of “social media” agrees with your bias here.

Media outlets: NY Times, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR.

Tech companies: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter.

Some companies are even both. But in the main, Twitter is the thing that employs developers and writes code and not the thing that employs reporters and writes stories.

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

#454

Post by manquer »

jeffbee wrote: post #319
weinzierl wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a bit my point. The details differ and the naming differs but I'd argue that by and large and in the broad public perception there are three categories: Privately-owned commercial, state controlled and a third category that is really neither. Regardless of the details and legalities people know it when they see it, so an own label would be justified.

BBC clearly meets certain definitions of "state controlled" and NPR does not meet any. BBC itself cannot sack its chairman. Only the government can appoint and remove them.

There is significant controversy on the current one , how his appointment came about and links to then PM Boris Johnson.

Also recent controversy over Match of the day program presenter Gary Lineker on twitter(!) comparing government language on immigration to the ones used by Nazis and his suspension following that .

Given all this it is fair to say they are government controlled

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

#455

Post by somedude895 »

afinlayson wrote: post #232
trasz3 wrote: post #70

Yeah, it's not like their CEO came directly from the relevant government bureau, right? I'm not a fan of Elon (or most companies, for that matter), but this was the right thing to do. Previously the "government-sponsored" badge was nothing more than US propaganda.

SpaceX and Telsa are government funded ... More so than NPR. I don't see that tag anywhere on Twitter. And I wouldn't be surprised if twitter is combing the tax code to find government subsidies. It's the slippery slope fallacy. Maybe we should start calling jaywalkers un-convicted criminals. It'd be a good way to differentiate rural and urban people for political gain. This is just another way to keep people heading…

Every large corporation benefits or has in the past benefited from the government. What difference does it make? Business profiles do marketing and advertising. They're not expected to report neutrally and fairly about current goings-on in society and politics. This is a ridiculous argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

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

#456

Post by AmericanChopper »

tims33 wrote: post #432
DrThunder wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. Just because you say you do doesn't make it so. When a big part of your funding comes from the people that can vote to cut it at any moment you do not have true independence. This is as silly as the argument saying the 1st amendment isn't violated by social media when you have the government literally asking these companies for censorship.

That could apply to a huge portion of all businesses on Twitter. How many of the F500 have benefitted from a gov't bailout or some other taxpayer subsidy. No one is really squeaky clean on this front.

Most F500 companies aren’t media companies, and the interests motivating any public statements they make are well understood by the public.

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

#457

Post by burkaman »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #372
ceejayoz wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article indicates, those stations receive an average of 8% from CPB, and 5% from Federal/state/local government. The other 87% comes from elsewhere - 43% of it as individual donations. If they're "government funded" as a result, slap the label on Walmart and McDonalds. They can't operate without Federal funding, either. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...

Are you suggesting that Walmart and McDonald's receive more in government subsidies than they pay in taxes?

Yes, probably. Not only does Walmart receive significant wage and benefit subsidies for its employees, but they also receive income from customers using food stamps. In 2014 that food stamp spending was estimated to be $13 billion, far more than they pay in taxes.

- https://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/04/big...

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

#458

Post by throwaway8582 »

clipsy wrote: post #217
hitpointdrew wrote: post #203

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.

Great, so you agree that Tesla and SpaceX must also be labeled as state-affiliated, right? And of course every single company that took PPP money, and...

And what purpose would that serve? Tesla is not a media company. It doesn't publish news and it doesn't claim to be objective. Nobody is interested in how their sources of funding might bias their coverage of events because that's completely irrelevant to a car company

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

#459

Post by iamerroragent »

xdavidliu wrote: post #354
eastbound wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange that labelling medias with their true funding diminishes their credibility so much that they’d flee to any place where this information is not disclosed.

what percentage of NPR’s true funding was from the government?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

I'm seeing about ~10% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) which if I'm reading correctly is itself primarily funded by Federal grants.

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

#460

Post by jacquesm »

hot_gril wrote: post #408
jacquesm wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and this gives their funders editorial control how?

Why else do they get this source of funding that other networks don't have? (Though this is still just a theory and not reason to slap "govt-affiliated" on them. "Govt-funded" is fair.)

You should look into their origin story if you want an answer. And no, Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control. The BBC in the UK, the NOS in NL, NPR in the United States, and so on are all official channels but they also have their own editorial staff and only in very rare cases does the government directly intervene in the production (and usually simultaneously on other channels as well). So this is simply Elon playing stupid games, which he seems to be very good at.
Post reply on HN