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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by just-ok »

d23 wrote: post #716
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…

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.

Has NPR evolved since its inception? Sure. But "nor has it ever been" is... misleading at best:

> Funding for NPR comes from [...other sources...] and annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hmm, let's look into said Corporation:

> On February 26, 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR)

> The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.

> The CPB is governed by a nine-member board of directors selected by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate

I mean... If this wasn't "state-affiliated media" at its inception, I'm not entirely sure what is.

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

#742

Post by ghiculescu »

jacquesm wrote: post #622
pclmulqdq wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about Al Jazeera's funding and level of control?

Trustworthy when it is about non-local affairs, hopelessly biased when it is about local affairs. But Al Jazeera doesn't really pretend to be unbiased. Sometimes I'm positively surprised by the quality of their reporting. But them being Qatar based the amount of local news that would affect me is nil. They definitely offer an interesting perspective on the world as seen from the Arabic perspective, meanwhile I'm well…

Replace "Al Jazeera" with "NPR" in your comment and you're also spot on.

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

#743

Post by throw_m239339 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #64
segasaturn wrote: post #9

I wonder if this will have any domino effect, right now the only thing holding Twitter together is its network effects. According to the article on NPR's site[0], they have 8.7 million followers and run 52 different accounts so Twitter is losing a pretty important partner. Also, no mention of Mastodon in this announcement. It sounds like they're just going to use Facebook for the time being. 0: https://www.npr.org/20…

> no mention of Mastodon in this announcement Mastodon blew its moment. It could have eaten Twitter’s lunch. But onboarding—specifically, choosing a server—was too tedious for non-niche adoption.

This is by design, Mastodon goal was never to replace Twitter, it's an alternative but with different goals. Mastodon isn't a centralized platform. This is good. The people that after a broad global audience shouldn't expect Mastodon to replace Twitter. Mastodon is its own thing.

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

#744

Post by anonymouskimmer »

Georgelemental wrote: post #729
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should Elon's account (or SpaceX or Telsa) have the same label because of their significant government funding? My first thought. How much in easy loans have his companies received from the government? This is just rich people hating on the industry that publicly critiques them.

[flagged]

> 56% of political contributions directly to candidates from private donors who gave over $100,000, went to Democrats.

> NPR is an ally of the preferred political party of the rich.

In order to infer the second statement from the first, first you have to demonstrate that >50% of political donors (not donations) of greater than $100,000 were from Democrats. Perhaps Democract-leaning donors were merely motivated to make a bunch of donations over $100k, while Republican-leaning donors made fewer donations per donor.

It would be even better if you demonstrated that >50% of political donors above a certain wealth threshold gave to Democrats over Republicans

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

#745

Post by Georgelemental »

bilekas wrote: post #53
misssocrates wrote: post #10

> 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?

Because every penny counts. What business would turn around and say : "We don't need that 1%, you can have it back". It's state affiliated. Like Tesla. Like any company who received covid relief. Tax breaks etc. Less than 1 percentage is simply not influential. It's disingenuous to say it's owned by the government.

Either the money is important to NPR, or it is not. If and only if is important, it gives the government leverage over the organization.

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

#746

Post by generic92034 »

DrThunder wrote: post #465
generic92034 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name any media company being truly independent? Or is any owner excluded from the potential list of dependencies?

I'm discussing government independence specifically, not whether companies are beholden to someone else. Obviously all businesses are beholden to someone. Yes you should always have an interest in what/who companies are beholden to. There's a reason Nike and Apple don't chastise the Chinese government.

If I have understood you correctly you were concerned by funding being cut off. Why would that not be a concern with other media, not receiving any government funds, as well? I also do not really understand why you are more concerned with government dependencies than with any other dependencies. Actually I think the latter dependencies might be the stronger influence on a media company, especially if it is a large part of the budget.

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

#747

Post by Georgelemental »

gaoshan wrote: post #483

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.

NPR are totally propaganda for the State, 100%, without reservation. (I used to be a regular listener, back when they were tolerable)

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

#748

Post by ghiculescu »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #594
user3939382 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of them bucking the DNC establishment? I’ve never seen one. AFAICT state propaganda is exactly what they are.

Are you genuinely asking for examples, or are you just declaring your opinion in bad faith? NPR reports on DNC mishaps and criminals all the time: - https://www.npr.org/2017/11/16/564593737/sen-al-franken-accu... - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/12/505309059... - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/19/529119721... - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/04/568336597... - https:/…

I don't have a strong view on this yet, but I think some links that are less than 5 years old would make your argument more compelling.

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

#750

Post by Georgelemental »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #744
Georgelemental wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 56% of political contributions directly to candidates from private donors who gave over $100,000, went to Democrats. > NPR is an ally of the preferred political party of the rich. In order to infer the second statement from the first, first you have to demonstrate that >50% of political donors (not donations) of greater than $100,000 were from Democrats. Perhaps Democract-leaning donors were merely motivated to mak…

The website I linked bins per-donor, not per-donation. Of donations from donors who gave over $100,000 total, more went to Democrats than to Republicans.
Post reply on HN