3 ms·

Is their entire argument "we're not state affiliated because most of our funding comes from other places". Media companies don't need to get their funding from

Is their entire argument "we're not state affiliated because most of our funding comes from other places". Media companies don't need to get their funding from the state in order to be state affiliated. They can be (have been) infiltrated by state agents. All of them, not just NPR. We know 2 things for a fact: the state uses the media to control the majority of people, and they also have incredibly powerful and efficient covert agencies. There's no chance in hell NPR or any other media company doesn't have state agents embedded in its highest levels of management.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Is their entire argument “we’re not state affiliated because most of our funding comes from other places”. No, their argument is that they are mostly not even state funded because most of their funding comes from other places. They aren’t state affiliated because the government doesn’t exercise editorial control, and that’s Twitter’s stated definition of state-affiliated, which expressly excludes state-funded outlets that have editorial independence. > We know 2 things for a fact: the state uses the media to control the majority of people, and they also have incredibly powerful and efficient covert agencies. There’s no chance in hell NPR or any other media company doesn’t have state agents embedded in its highest levels of management. So every media outlet globally should be labelled as “state affiliated” media of at least one and probably multiple different states based on this conspiratorial viewpoint?