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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by mfer »

jacquesm wrote: post #693
mfer wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflict of interest is that he is writing about an organization he works for.

That does not mean there is a conflict of interest. By your standards no news organization would ever be able to report on things that they themselves are a player in. But in the real world this happens with some regularity and editorial boards have set ways of dealing with this sort of situation. They tend to become far more careful as soon as their own name is part of the story on the off chance that it could be us…

> But in the real world this happens with some regularity and editorial boards have set ways of dealing with this sort of situation

Conflicts of interest are things to know and look out for.

This is not the case of an editorial board. And, when publications write about themselves, even when there are editorial boards, there is a conflict and they may very well report the story differently than a 3rd party.

Not realizing the conflict of interest is akin to being just fine with content on a news site about a product written by someone at the product company with no label of sponsored content or something similar.

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

#712

Post by Georgelemental »

kyralis wrote: post #516
yossarian1408 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because the label has a connotation that is not accurate. Connotation is just as important as denotation when evaluating meaning and accuracy of statements. Engineers love to pretend otherwise - that's probably part of why we're engineers - but that doesn't make them right.

The connotation is a product of how the label was inconsistently applied in the past. Consistent application of the label will solve this problem pretty soon, without requiring Twitter to make judgment calls that should be beyond its purview

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

#713

Post by flavius29663 »

hilbertseries wrote: post #504
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.

NPR continuing to publish programming critical of Trump during the Trump presidency, is a pretty strong indication they have editorial independence.

not necessarily. It just means it's not as bad as it would be in China or Russia.

NPR knew the democrats would be back in power in a couple of years...they weren't risking much by being anti-Trump. But they did gain goodwill from the democrats, which can extend them support every time they are in power.

I am not arguing for or against either side, I am just pointing out a flaw in your logic.

I think NPR is so solidly on the democrats side, that it's hard to distinguish what came first: the chicken or the egg?

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

#714

Post by ElevenLathe »

bagels wrote: post #317

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.

I'd say its more like serious politics games. Yes, anyone who is interested in material reality knows that all media institutions are controlled by wealthy people, governments, and so on. No, that doesn't mean there isn't real benefit to some groups in projecting the illusion of their independence while simultaneously sewing doubt about the independence of other media. Material reality is a fringe idea pursued by a small minority (and shrinking all the time).

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

#715

Post by kodah »

lostlogin wrote: post #618
kodah wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal? That's not what I was talking about in this specific instance of Twitter though. Maybe you can make your point more clear.

The parent comment isn’t referring to Twitter surely?

I think they were trying to say because Twitter successfully suppressed conspiracy theories in the past that it gives them a pass when the information happened to not be a conspiracy theory. If that was the takeaway, I fully disagree. If you get into the suppression game, even for the right reasons, you deserve whatever comes your way when you're wrong even once. That's how we keep powerful entities honest.

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

#716

Post by d23 »

yossarian1408 wrote: post #502
bagels wrote: post #317

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…

NPR is not nor has it ever been state-affiliated media in any reasonable sense of the word. Is it a full stop, bald-face lie.

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

#717

Post by jacquesm »

mfer wrote: post #711
jacquesm wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not mean there is a conflict of interest. By your standards no news organization would ever be able to report on things that they themselves are a player in. But in the real world this happens with some regularity and editorial boards have set ways of dealing with this sort of situation. They tend to become far more careful as soon as their own name is part of the story on the off chance that it could be us…

> But in the real world this happens with some regularity and editorial boards have set ways of dealing with this sort of situation Conflicts of interest are things to know and look out for. This is not the case of an editorial board. And, when publications write about themselves, even when there are editorial boards, there is a conflict and they may very well report the story differently than a 3rd party. Not realiz…

> they may very well report the story differently than a 3rd party

They may well do so, but that needs samples and analysis, not blanket statements.

Unless you have a particular beef with this article I do not think that is a strong argument to make.

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

#718

Post by maaand »

bagels wrote: post #317

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.

Do you also get your news from SpaceX and Tesla?

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

#719

Post by hot_gril »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #706
hot_gril wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'll be more persuasive you actually answer his question instead of further casting aspersions.

I don't have evidence of federal editorial control over NPR, nor does anyone have evidence of the absence, which is why I say that only "govt-funded" is a fair label.

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

#720

Post by guelo »

yossarian1408 wrote: post #502
bagels wrote: post #317

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…

The label was "State Affiliated media" not "publicly funded".
Post reply on HN