471–480 of 1001 posts
> 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?
Grocery stores traditionally or supposedly only make 1% to 3% profit. These days it's probably 1%. So I'd say 1% is a lot if it's the thing keeping the company from going under if that income disappears.
Should Twitter itself get a state sponsored label for getting concessions from San Francisco on their headquarters? https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-controller-hails-... Should Elon's account (or SpaceX or Telsa) have the same label because of their significant government funding? It's hard to see this as anything but silly politics games.
Are they a "media" company primarily dedicated to the practice of journalism?
There’s a lot of focus in comments on the funding. But let’s say you are an engineer at Meta. And the next time you log into Twitter, your personal Twitter account has a label that says “Meta-affiliated account.” Would that seem fair or accurate? Even though you get most of your personal income from your employer, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are directing what you do and say on your own social media accou…
It seems reasonable to disclose that one works at a company before posting an opinion related to that company online. The statement "I love CeraVe products" is worth a whole lot more from a happy customer than it would be from a CeraVe employee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NPR needs money and they need editorial freedom, they seem to have both. I really can't fault them for that, editorial independence is the yardstick by which media should be judged unless there is outright ownership.
Money can be easily tracked. Editorial independence cannot be. I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. They know member donations are their biggest funding source, so they largely tell their audience what they want to hear. Put another way, I don't think perfect editorial independence exists. Everyone knows where their bread is being buttered. Having a bad…
Not even close from my outsider perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If NPR doesn’t wish to accept the label it should refuse government funding.
If Twitter wants to survive it should stop antagonizing large users to make political statements
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is a bad-faith argument, but just to be clear, NPR get's a tiny fraction of its funding from the government *and* maintains editorial independence. > The news organization says that is inaccurate and misleading, given that NPR is a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence. It receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Br…
Being free of direct government funding does not make it free from editorial independence. You can listen and get an idea of their underwriting. They're clear to walk the line around a lot of topics to not upset their corporate and non profit overlords. We live in a corporatocracy and these companies and non profits are revolving doors for regulatory capture through lobbying and other methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is a bad-faith argument, but just to be clear, NPR get's a tiny fraction of its funding from the government *and* maintains editorial independence. > The news organization says that is inaccurate and misleading, given that NPR is a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence. It receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Br…
Being free of direct government funding does not make it free from editorial independence. You can listen and get an idea of their underwriting. They're clear to walk the line around a lot of topics to not upset their corporate and non profit overlords. We live in a corporatocracy and these companies and non profits are revolving doors for regulatory capture through lobbying and other methods.
That's true for virtually all news organization - public or private. NPR is not an outlier in this regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If NPR doesn’t wish to accept the label it should refuse government funding.
So any company accepting grants is a state-affiliated company? Honestly I kinda like it. I would extend it to any company accepting tax breaks. Imagine the headline 'The church of the Last days, a state-affiliated non-profit, is warning that the end is near'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>... why is it bad to let people know? It's not, as long as you're not doing it to specifically target one company or be a dick about it. Is he going to label his own companies with the same thing? >According to a Los Angeles Times investigation, Musk's companies had received an estimated $4.9 billion in government support by 2015, and they've gotten more since.[1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also this part that you did not quote: >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.
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.