A criticism of NPR that I often see online is that NPR is leftists' propaganda machine (not government's, mind you, but democrat's). However, is this criticism true, though? To me, a propaganda machine would lie or weave facts to paint false pictures. I think it's perfectly okay if a media is either left leaning or right leaning. Heck, it's even okay if a media is extreme left biased or right biased, as long as the media reports facts (I assume opinions are their own rights). The only example I saw recently was that NPR blatantly rejected the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden's laptop story. I don't agree with NPR's decision, but I can definitely give them the benefit of doubt that they truly believed that the story was a distraction. So, are there any additional data points that show NPR is a propaganda machine to some extent?
NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#672> 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?
Let’s graph all their sponsors and their connection to the corporations that also puppet our elected officials. My guess is the vast majority of their funding looks like: Megacorp -> NPR Megacorp -> Exec -> NPR Megacorp -> Political NGO -> NPR In addition to the direct Federal grant which is under the control of the same politicians in turn owned by these corporations. The idea that it’s some independent real news or…
Not to mention it is conveniently a non-profit so all those donations are tax write-offs. What better way to influence the voice of a media company?
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#673Earlier 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…
Twitter isn’t media? They call themselves ‘social media’ in their AppStore description. https://apps.apple.com/nz/app/twitter/id333903271
A social media company is a media company in the same way that a cyberspace company is a space company.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm giving you a regular flow of money that keeps you well fed and housed in a nice area, you're going to at least subconsciously care about how I perceive you and if I approve of the things you're doing, because I have the power to cut off that flow of money at any time. This is why many wealthy individuals and organizations donate to both political parties. The implicit threat of losing a flow of money you've be…
Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it. But from where I'm sitting - far outside of the USA - they offer some of the most balanced and clean reporting out there (and that includes the BBC).
They aren’t even slightly balanced anymore, especially their radio stuff. They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. I didn’t hear a single positive thing about anything the Trump administration did during his presidency, only after the last election. You can’t turn on your local station without hearing some identity politics within a few minutes - either from them or NPR itself. They often only have one “side” being interviewed for their reporting.
It just so happens that Republicans want to pull their funding and Democrats don’t. That’s a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation.
It’s sad because they used to be pretty good, and were probably the last bastion of somewhat balanced reporting in our country.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not sure what you meant about the language to use -- but I do agree that I'd prefer to see disclosures upfront. I know that most NPR podcasts, for example, state the disclosure at the start of the podcast. Because honestly, I probably only finish about half of the articles I start -- I know, that's my fault.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#676Should 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.
[flagged]
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#677My general take on this is that people can make whatever arguments they want about whether NPR is According-To-Hoyle state media (I don't think it is, by the spirit of the term, but it's a gnarly enough question that I wouldn't want to burn a whole thread trying to hash it out).
The real issue here is: if Twitter is going to continue to be ad-sponsored for commercial viability, running a social media platform that chases National Public Radio off is very bad for business. You already have major national brands hesitant to re-engage there (whether you like their reasons or not). Playing chicken with NPR and losing is an awfully powerful arrow to put in the anti-Twitter quiver at those companies.
I wouldn't want to look at this through the lens of politics, so much as just plain mismanagement. It's part of a broader theme of Twitter, which depends utterly on user-generated content, doing things to deliberately antagonize the minority of their user base that actually produces content people want to see.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
China controls their state media, NPR/BBC etc. have state funding but remain editorially independent.
[flagged]
I know China requires Communist party committees within most large businesses. It would surprise me if this is not also the case for their news media. Note that these aren't affiliations, but actual political organizations within the businesses.
The Republicans control the house. The US is not a land of political "rulers", at least not at the moment (arguments can be made for FDR's presidency).
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#679Good. It's clear now that Twitter is just an information control mechanism for Musk, and journalists should quit their addiction to it. I think every major news outlet should have their own ActivityPub compatible service, essentially as a modern replacement for RSS.
> Twitter is just an information control mechanism for Musk, and journalists should quit agreed. That was the case long before Musk. Would you have felt comfortable articulating that opinion, two years ago? When anything but Twitter was "an extremist echo chamber"? When the only censorship they were indulging in was the censorship we still can't talk about?
>Would you have felt comfortable articulating that opinion, two years ago?
I posted rather often about how awful Twitter was long before there was a whiff of Musk buying it. (It's still awful.) I didn't really talk about "information control", but I don't care about that now, either; Twitter's audience was never that big.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Do people hire for (non-PR) jobs based on tweets?
I doubt it. But it's a great way to find out about opportunities. I've had 3 jobs that I only heard about because somebody mentioned it on some social medium. One was on Twitter, one Facebook, and one in a specialist Slack.