611–620 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's the reason for the initial @ symbol, seems superfluous
So it doesn't get mistaken for an email address.
Many European countries have state-funded but independent media. Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain, France, et al, all have state-funded and independent media.
The idea is that state-funding makes them less dependent since they do not have to only report what people want to read for ad-revenue but can focus on honest reporting (including reporting critical of the government).
Whether you buy that argument or not is a different discussion. The point is that "state funded" has nothing to do with "state controlled" or even "state affiliated"; just another dumb move by Elon Musk.
I quit Twitter a long time ago. Good riddance, I have not missed anything!
It's so wild witnessing the degradation of Twitter.
People keep saying this but I haven't noticed at all, I stopped using it for years but now I am back and have noticed only improvements
All the drama around Twitter's also flat-out hilarious if one doesn't care whether Twitter lives or dies, and lots of that drama's on Twitter, so I'd call that an improvement, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. "True but we think it's irrelevant" does not equate to "false". 2. "But america are the good guys" is the exact kind of thing you see uniformly from all American media including NPR.
You really believe that NPR and the BBC belong in the same basket as Russian and Chinese state media?
If you've been ingesting a narrative since middle school, and the BBC reinforces it, well that's just good neutral unbiased reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats not necessarily true if its the weather service, post office or whatever. I am no Twitter fan/user, but its a decent format for circulating government announcements that people will actually see.
Interestingly NOAA isn't listed as state media: https://twitter.com/NOAA
The argument is that its fair to label NPR as govt funded, because they technically are, but Twitter is not exactly in a hurry to apply this rule anywhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
more ontopic, I think its indicative of a general exodus of brands in general as well. nobody wants to pay for the checkmark, nobody wants to have their brand identity or message challenged or negated by fly-by-night impostors, and most people have lost tolerance for the abdication of moderation and safe space for a modern brand in general. The time to close your account was arguably last November when leadership fir…
Yeah, agreed. I was one of the people who quit Twitter in November. It has been a real loss for me, going from 7k followers on Twitter to 0.1k on Mastodon. Especially now that I'll be soon starting a job hunt, I miss that. But when I review my reasons for leaving Twitter [1], I'm not regretting it. I would rather have no platform than that platform. And the calculation for brands is surely much more fraught. I expect…
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.
Twitter, SpaceX and Tesla are not newspapers/publishers. The reason for labelling news organisations' government affiliations is for the viewer/reader to understand that there may or may not be bias, and where the funding is coming from. If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding. Additionally, if there's no influence/bias, then why does it…
State affiliated media indicates state run media... i.e. propaganda for the State. NPR is in no way propaganda for the State. It's probably the furthest a media outlet could be from such a thing. This as an example of people putting their own political ideologies above all else and labeling the things that don't necessarily support them as propaganda. It's wrong and short sighted.
Do you have any examples of them bucking the DNC establishment? I’ve never seen one. AFAICT state propaganda is exactly what they are.
> For example, NPR joined with other media organizations to press the Obama administration for access to closed hearings involving detainees held by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay