3 ms·
So the Wikipedia says the following "[NPR] differs from other non-profit membership media organizations such as the Associated Press, in that it was establishe
by kneebonian 4y ago
So the Wikipedia says the following
"[NPR] differs from other non-profit membership media organizations such as the Associated Press, in that it was established by an act of Congress.[4] Although NPR receives only 1% of its direct funding from the federal government,[5] member stations (which pay dues amounting to approximately one third of NPR's revenue), tend to receive far larger portions of their budgets from the federal (through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and state governments.[6][7][8][9][10][11] NPR states it is not state-run media, and further states it operates independently of the U.S. government;[5] nonetheless, NPR indicates that federal funding is essential to NPR and that the loss of federal funding would weaken the network."[1]
So I could see an argument going both ways, technically it isn't owned and operated by the US Government, but it requires US Government funding to continue to exist and was established by an act of congress.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
- kllrnohj 4y agoMore of Twitter is funded by Saudi Arabia than NPR is by the federal government, should Twitter also have a state-affiliated label? The stated purpose of the label was to identify state-operated news (ie, literal government propaganda outlets). NPR is very obviously not that, and it along with the BBC were literally Twitter's two examples of things that won't get the label.
- fknorangesite 4y ago> I could see an argument going both ways Only if you're being disingenuous; this very much is not what is meant by "state-affiliated", since the state doesn't have any editorial control over NPR.
- bhelkey 4y ago> So I could see an argument going both ways I'm not sure I see your point. The label is 'government affiliated' not 'government owned' or 'government operated'. The argument for the label seems very clear. What would the argument against be? Edit: I was mistaken: Twitter originally drew a line between state funded and state editorial control. From Twitter's blog in 2020, "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, will not be labeled." [1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-labels-for-government-and-state-affiliated-media-accounts https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/new-label...
- theossuary 4y agoTwo things. First Twitter's own policy clearly states "state affiliated media" are media corporations where the state influences editorial decisions. There's no evidence the US government has any editorial influence on NPR, and that's what is (supposedly) required. Just because NPR receives a little federal funding directly, and some federal funding indirectly, isn't proof of editorial control or even influence by the state. Second, the BBC, which is primarily funded by the UK government, and whose applicants for top positions must be vetted by MI5, doesn't have a state affiliated media warning. So clearly funding source isn't actually a concern, unless it's NPR.