[deleted]
NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
651–660 of 1001 posts
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#652Seems like a funny reaction to a label added as a subtitle to an organization with the name National Public Radio People get attached to words or phrases without thinking about what they actually mean, seems like definitions get modified to emotionally herd the [un]imaginative/initiated Wild that style of thinking goes that high up the chain at NPR the CEO sounds child-like with their response
The label carries a lot of weight that drags down NPRs integrity. Musk knows that, NPR knows that - NPR is doing the right thing rejecting the label.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#653Should 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.
strawman.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#654Earlier quoted context omitted.
The label is "state-affiliated media" so it makes sense that the label isn't applied to Twitter or SpaceX, not because they aren't state-affiliated, but because they aren't media. And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased, as opposed to e.g. Raytheon which is objectively state-affiliated but nobody expects to be doing objective report…
> And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased This has never been the case. Never. While some journalism sources operate in a facts-only manner, all journalistic sources have bias as to which stories they research. And historically, the press has been about propaganda, editorials, and selling papers at least as much as about reporting.…
> Labeling news organization as "government-funded" is less informative than labeling them as "propaganda" or "editorializing".
By your own reasoning, those other labels would be redundant. Whereas "government-affiliated" makes the reader aware of a specific kind of bias that not all media entities are subject to.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#655Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's irrelevant, the label implies control like with the Russians and the Chinese, and that control simply isn't there.
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.
NPR being state affiliated is false. NPR being funded by the state is not, but it leads people to believe that it's affiliated with the state, which is false.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#656I'm sure NPR does some good work, and while I believe it is biased, I've found it to be less biased than CNN or MSNBC. I don't understand why NPR objects to being labeled as either state funded or state affiliated. It was established by an act of Congress, for one thing, and according to its own website, and its own disclosures, it does depend on federal funding. And that figure is substantially more than the claimed…
It does disclose it... this is at the end of the article: Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Acting Chief Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James. NPR's Bobby Allyn and Mary Yang contributed to this story. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it…
You're right. I either missed it or the disclaimer was added after I first read the piece.
I think I'd have preferred it be up front in the first paragraph, and that the writer used language making it clear he was talking about his own company and not NPR as an entity he was able to be objective about. That's what I'd have done.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
with ActivityPub you can have specific actors like @breaking@npr.org, @sports@npr.org, @finance@npr.org, @waitwaitdonttellme@npr.org, @reporter@npr.org, et cetera.
for some reason I'm annoyed by all the @ symbols in these new things
I like the Matrix format, "@user:domain.tld"
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#658Earlier quoted context omitted.
8.7 million followers but take a look at their feed. Go back a week in time (for a snapshot) and the like/retweets/comments are generally in the 10s or low hundreds, with a few exceptions (low thousands). Same with NYT. Last time I looked they had 50+ million followers with similar low engagement. So how many of their followers are bots and what’s NPRs true value to Twitter? I don’t know. I’ve got a small 5k followin…
You hit the nail on the head. Most twitter account followers are nothing but bots. Millions of 'followers' but likes and retweets only in the dozens. It also makes for huge egos. Like, they know they bought all their followers, but they wake up one day and forget, and start to believe their own bullshit. To be fair it is everywhere, youtube accounts will millions of followers do the same. Never more than 200 comments…
I got 0 engagement with hundreds of real followers by the end, but the situation got worse every year with a tangible nosedive in the new era. This was a carefully curated following where I blocked and reported every bot that showed up. The problem is Twitter.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#659He... he really thought that he was buying reality, I guess?
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the "government funded media" was a last minute save, the original "state affiliated media" is a false claim. Surely you grasp the difference between the two labels? The latter has corporate and editorial control in case you were unaware.
Anyone providing money to a media org has some amount of editorial control. The newer version is more specific but it doesn’t mean state affiliated is inaccurate.
It does mean it's inaccurate because state affiliated is already a specific term to describe editorial control. I don't know how else to put it to you, maybe an example.
You can publish a podcast or article or whatever on NPR right now about how much you hate the current administration and want them replaced. You cannot do that with state affiliated media, if CGTN tomorrow did the same, the state has the direct ability to take action against that by firing people, changing management, altering funding, etc. That's if they even get past initial filters!
To argue that "state affiliation" is meaningless by handwaving it as "anyone providing money to a media org has some amount of editorial control" is bad faith.