4 ms·

If NPR has such a problem being labeled a state-affiliated organization and they really aren't under the influence of the state or depend on state funds, then w

If NPR has such a problem being labeled a state-affiliated organization and they really aren't under the influence of the state or depend on state funds, then why not simply cut ties and become a private company?

qgin 4y ago
If NPR isn't really under the influence of MyPillow or depend on MyPillow funds, then why not simply cut ties? (Fox News gets about the same percentage of revenue from MyPillow and Balance of Nature as NPR does from grants) My joke here is way to seriously say that if simply receiving money from a source is enough to indict an organization, then we have a lot of work to do beyond NPR to be suspicious of everyone. But if the requirement is what it has traditionally been, showing actual evidence of influence or coercion, then to me that sounds like a more sensible way to do things.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  Having the label doesn’t “indict” an organization. It’s a label for the sake of clarity. CNN, Fox, etc should all get it too. BBC should get it but for UK.
  - qgin 4y ago
    The label was created for organizations that are controlled or coerced by their governments so people could take what they say knowing it had potentially been crafted by that government. I don't think there would be anything wrong with a transparent listing of all funding sourced for every news organization, but this is something different from that.
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      > The label was created for organizations that are controlled or coerced by their governments so people could take what they say knowing it had potentially been crafted by that government. how exactly do you think that sort of stuff happens in other countries?
      - qgin 4y ago
        If NPR was controlled and coerced by the United States government, wouldn't there be at least some observable difference in content depending on who was controlling the United States government at any given time?
        pandaman 4y ago
        Does the Voice of America's content change when the party in control of each chamber of Congress changes?
        antibasilisk 4y ago
        There would, if not for the fact that who controls the US government doesn't really change. The president doesn't call the shots, the special interest groups, department heads and intelligence agencies do, and those are the same groups that are able to exercise direct control over NPR. Frankly this isn't much more subtle than your average show-democracy. To give two concrete examples of this you can look into the 7th Floor Group and Operation Mockingbird.
    - tpoacher 4y ago
      The key word here is "potentially". It is absolutely true that funding of this kind could "potentially" lead to control or coercion.
    - xtiansimon 4y ago
      “…listing of all funding sourced for every news organization, but this is something different from that.” LOL. Considering that NPR/PBS receives money from pledge drives, that’s a long list indeed.

qgin 4y ago

If NPR isn't really under the influence of MyPillow or depend on MyPillow funds, then why not simply cut ties? (Fox News gets about the same percentage of revenue from MyPillow and Balance of Nature as NPR does from grants) My joke here is way to seriously say that if simply receiving money from a source is enough to indict an organization, then we have a lot of work to do beyond NPR to be suspicious of everyone. But if the requirement is what it has traditionally been, showing actual evidence of influence or coercion, then to me that sounds like a more sensible way to do things.

aaomidi 4y ago
Having the label doesn’t “indict” an organization. It’s a label for the sake of clarity. CNN, Fox, etc should all get it too. BBC should get it but for UK.
- qgin 4y ago
  The label was created for organizations that are controlled or coerced by their governments so people could take what they say knowing it had potentially been crafted by that government. I don't think there would be anything wrong with a transparent listing of all funding sourced for every news organization, but this is something different from that.
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    > The label was created for organizations that are controlled or coerced by their governments so people could take what they say knowing it had potentially been crafted by that government. how exactly do you think that sort of stuff happens in other countries?
    - qgin 4y ago
      If NPR was controlled and coerced by the United States government, wouldn't there be at least some observable difference in content depending on who was controlling the United States government at any given time?
      - pandaman 4y ago
        Does the Voice of America's content change when the party in control of each chamber of Congress changes?
      - antibasilisk 4y ago
        There would, if not for the fact that who controls the US government doesn't really change. The president doesn't call the shots, the special interest groups, department heads and intelligence agencies do, and those are the same groups that are able to exercise direct control over NPR. Frankly this isn't much more subtle than your average show-democracy. To give two concrete examples of this you can look into the 7th Floor Group and Operation Mockingbird.
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    The key word here is "potentially". It is absolutely true that funding of this kind could "potentially" lead to control or coercion.
  - xtiansimon 4y ago
    “…listing of all funding sourced for every news organization, but this is something different from that.” LOL. Considering that NPR/PBS receives money from pledge drives, that’s a long list indeed.