[flagged]
NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
NPR is listed as government-funded media, not state-affiliated media [0] A large part of their funding comes from congress -> corporation for public broadcasting -> local NPR affiliates -> NPR. It is indirect funding, yes, but they are very much funded by the US government. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/NPR
It was changed to that. Originally the label was as given in the headline: "state-affiliated media".
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so to amend OP's original point: Should Twitter come with a label as "state-owned" considering both the Qatari and Saudi governments hold a significant stake in the company?
Twitter doesn’t report the news. It’s a platform. Labels are for publishers of news. Why is everyone having such a hard to grokking this
A) I never said Twitter should be labelled a state-owned news company, just whether it should be labelled state-owned.
B) Twitter (like all "platforms") holds the ability to control the flow of information. The moment a "platform" puts their finger on the scales and blocks certain types of legal information from being discovered (as they did last week in blocking substack links, for example) then they forfeit their claim to being a "platform" and should be treated as media distribution companies. As such they should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as news organizations should be
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#914Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
NPR is listed as government-funded media, not state-affiliated media [0] A large part of their funding comes from congress -> corporation for public broadcasting -> local NPR affiliates -> NPR. It is indirect funding, yes, but they are very much funded by the US government. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/NPR
How is 1% a large part?
Quoting https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
> On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox News probably had more followers when they stopped posting on Twitter a few years ago. Not to mention all the right wing momentum behind Parler, Gab, Telegram, Truth Social etc. didn't make a noticeable dent.
For a company that "stopped posting on Twitter" they sure post a lot: https://twitter.com/FoxNews
If you're going to be wrong at least don't be snarky.
https://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-breaks-16-month-twitter-sil...
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#916Earlier 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…
Twitter is a publisher. Just like newspapers publish AP stories, Twitter publishes the latest memes from users.
As someone not in US newspaper terms, I thought AP was associated publisher (ie another publisher who gives them rights to edit the story)
This seems super far from what twitter is. Please explicitly explain how an AP story is in regards to twitter.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#917[flagged]
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should Elon's account (or SpaceX or Telsa) have the same label because of their significant government funding? Are SpaceX or Tesla news organizations?
They can post on Twitter in the same way as others can. If the objective is to show potential bias, why only apply it to some accounts?
Can't wait to see the same logic applied to twitter posters on welfare.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people should be slower to act. Around the time they left, the label had already been improved to mention funding instead of affiliation. If they could just be a bit chill about it, is quite possible within a month it might have been replaced with a approximate-percentage-funding label, which should not be particularly offensive. Would be really slick to see all media accounts have company ownership / funding…
"people" here refers to elmu, and the acting refers to his label changes, right?
Both. Elon's approach to all this is pointlessly erratic, alienating himself from numerous people and orgs he could really use as allies. He might be right that moving entirely to paid verification is needed... but even if that is needed, it could be rolled out over a long time, with much less alienation of the user base.
NPR could benefit from a bit of patience also: realize how erratic the counterparty is, and wait a bit to see what shakes out.
Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people should be slower to act. Around the time they left, the label had already been improved to mention funding instead of affiliation. If they could just be a bit chill about it, is quite possible within a month it might have been replaced with a approximate-percentage-funding label, which should not be particularly offensive. Would be really slick to see all media accounts have company ownership / funding…
Or maybe they realize there's no benefit of being on Twitter anymore and they're not willing to take disrespect from a trollish man-child? It's a pit of right-wing extremism and some of the most fawning sycophancy I've ever seen.
Experiences seem to vary a lot. Some people report the Twitter feed changed radically for the worse. Others (including me) have found it's about the same. I think it must depend greatly on what accounts you follow.