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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by trasz3 »

SilverBirch wrote: post #426
trasz3 wrote: post #70

Yeah, it's not like their CEO came directly from the relevant government bureau, right? I'm not a fan of Elon (or most companies, for that matter), but this was the right thing to do. Previously the "government-sponsored" badge was nothing more than US propaganda.

It's always a bit strange when someone says they're not a fan of Elon and then proceed to give him an absurd level of benefit of the doubt by just eliding all the obvious facts that what he's doing is ridiculous and bad. Government-sponsored was not a US propaganda badge, it was a response to a serious concern about adversarial governments influencing US debate through 3rd party cut outs. It's a difficult problem to…

>Government-sponsored was not a US propaganda badge, it was a response to a serious concern about adversarial governments

For most people USA is an adversarial government. You've just confirmed it was a propaganda badge meaning "unamerican".

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

#942

Post by meerita »

khochesh_kushat wrote: post #757
meerita wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realized Twitter was a media company and not a social network.

It's right there in the name, social media.

Twitter is a social network. It may have media features, but its not a media company like NYT, NPR; etc. They don't create or practice journalism. They're a platform.

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

#943

Post by carefulreader »

petsfed wrote: post #589
kodah wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon's playing word games. When the average person talks about State Affiliated Media they're referring to editorial control. As far as I know NPR has always had editorial control and goes to great lengths to maintain neutrality in their writing. They've certainly screwed up in major ways before, but compared to MSNBC, Fox, the NYT, NYP, and CNN I'd say NPR looks like a saint. The irony I see here is that Twitter is…

I was going to mention Radio Free Europe as a really good example of egregious, western state-sponsored media, but then on a lark, I looked up how well regarded they are, bias-wise, and now I don't know what to think.

Don’t worry about the watchdogs. You can just read the content to see. It’s true they’re interested in human rights news, and authoritarian countries don’t look good on that subject. But the content is factual, and their reporters work at great risk.

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

#944

Post by carefulreader »

petsfed wrote: post #589
kodah wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon's playing word games. When the average person talks about State Affiliated Media they're referring to editorial control. As far as I know NPR has always had editorial control and goes to great lengths to maintain neutrality in their writing. They've certainly screwed up in major ways before, but compared to MSNBC, Fox, the NYT, NYP, and CNN I'd say NPR looks like a saint. The irony I see here is that Twitter is…

I was going to mention Radio Free Europe as a really good example of egregious, western state-sponsored media, but then on a lark, I looked up how well regarded they are, bias-wise, and now I don't know what to think.

Don’t worry about the watchdogs. Just read the content. It’s true that RFE/RL focuses on human rights and democracy, and authoritarian countries don’t look very good in those categories. But the reporting is factual, and their reporters run great risks. Several are in jail in Belarus, Russia, etc.

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

#945

Post by raxxorraxor »

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.

A connotation is subjective and should not matter. Public funding however is. In my country there are more or less trustworthy government funded news stations that are also flagged. At least on youtube.

But I believe the label is more important than what some people fear other people would maybe perceive.

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

#946

Post by rakoo »

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…

Twitter chooses what to push in front or not, it absolutely is a publisher

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

#947

Post by yufeng66 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #901
lamontcg wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations and institutions/foundations make up more than half of NPR's funding. And that exceeds the pledge drive funding, which collectively vastly exceeds the government funds they receive. When NPR runs their "ADM Supermarket to the World" spots, that is telling you who is really funding them and who to worry about exerting editorial control.

Any entity created by an Act of Congress is by definition affiliated with the federal government.

Hudson's bay company is incorporated by English Royal charter in 1670. By definition it is a department store affiliated with the English king :)

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

#948

Post by anon291 »

jacquesm wrote: post #303
starbase wrote: post #213

Here's what NPR's own website says about their federal funding: "Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR." "Public radio stations receive annual grants directly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)" "The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for…

Besides the fact that they receive only a tiny percentage of their funding from the government the bigger issue is that of editorial control and NPR is pretty clean as far as I can see. Unlike most of the other entities labeled 'State Affiliated Media'. Naming NPR in one breath with those others is intentionally tarnishing them and playing to the crowd, which is something that Elon has been engaging in in a very spec…

Well Twitter is a private company and can ban/publish who they please under their own terms

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

#950

Post by insane_dreamer »

hklgny wrote: post #280
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Everyone likes to blame the server interface, but honestly that's not so bad and I think most people get over it. Mastodon's real problem in my opinion is that its primary audience today doesn't actually want anyone new to join - it's VERY toxic for newcomers who don't fit a specific mold. It's a shame, cause we really do need something new. I'm hoping some of the new decentralized ones take off. Edit: I think the co…

Most people do not get over it.
Post reply on HN