5 ms·
The intent of this label was to highlight government propaganda outlets and distinguish them from news organizations. NPR is editorially independent and should
by KerrAvon 3y ago
The intent of this label was to highlight government propaganda outlets and distinguish them from news organizations. NPR is editorially independent and should not have this label.
- dcow 3y agoHonestly at this point in my life I don’t believe anybody can be editorially independent of their funding source no matter how hard they try. A label indicating accounts who receive government money despite what they claim about editorial independence seems like the move. Otherwise all the “propaganda outlets” will just claim independence. If the BBC is heavily subsidized then label it.
- dekhn 3y agoSure, you can't be truly editorially independent, but I'd say any fair evaluation of NPR's coverage would show that it is not a state mouthpiece, like Voice of America. It's an establishment mouthpiece (the state and the establishment aren't completely overlapping). This is America: you can bite the hand that feeds you and still be fed.
- xienze 3y ago> The intent of this label was to highlight government propaganda outlets and distinguish them from news organizations. Then Twitter should have, from the beginning, attached a big “propaganda warning” label on such sources instead of trying to make passive insinuations to the same effect using a label that has broad meaning. Looks like that backfired.