6 ms·

If the public funding isn’t important to them, then don’t take it and become truly independent. Or keep the funding and be open about it. I suspect most of NP

If the public funding isn’t important to them, then don’t take it and become truly independent. Or keep the funding and be open about it. I suspect most of NPR's followers are fine with their public funding, it's literally in the name. They're probably more upset about all their corporate funding. Tesla’s funding is neither here nor there; it’s not a news outlet.

jacquesm 4y ago
NPR needs money and they need editorial freedom, they seem to have both. I really can't fault them for that, editorial independence is the yardstick by which media should be judged unless there is outright ownership.
- nostromo 4y ago
  Money can be easily tracked. Editorial independence cannot be. I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. They know member donations are their biggest funding source, so they largely tell their audience what they want to hear. Put another way, I don't think perfect editorial independence exists. Everyone knows where their bread is being buttered. Having a badge on Twitter saying you're independent would be entirely a judgement call.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. Not even close from my outsider perspective.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. I... don't know. When the topic comes up there sure are a lot of us NPR listeners who are in rather a love-hate relationship with it, leaning toward "hate". Half the time I'm listening I'm shaking my head at how very self-parody-like NPR they're being or yelling at them to stop doing such shitty coverage. Like, the best news on my local station, far and away, is when they rebroadcast BBC content. If I could tune into actual BBC stations when driving, I'd probably listen to that a lot more than NPR. These days especially, NPR's only got a very-few programs I'd bother to save from a fire, as it were, or that I even might go out of my way to listen to when not in the car. It's just that there's not a lot of better news/commentary/talk programming on the radio dial.
    - Phileosopher 4y ago
      I agree, but in many ways it's a product of syndication. When you get out of that influence (e.g., independently published podcasters) the scope of quality becomes _much_ broader. I'm old enough to remember finding good-quality content on NPR, but I now look toward podcasts in the special interest I'm looking for to find good-quality audio-streamed information.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  State funding of media, regardless of how it’s structured, creates an obvious conflict of interest with editorial freedom. Theoretically it’s possible for a state funded media company to exercise editorial freedom, just like it would be theoretically possible for a climate study funded by ExxonMobile to exercise academic freedom, but not without acknowledging that the conflict of interest exists. Maybe they are a high integrity organisation, but the existence of this conflict of interest isn’t really up for debate. Maybe it’s not necessary for any state funded media to be labelled on Twitter, but if you’re going to label any of it, then you should label all of it.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The NPR makes no secret of its funding. But stamping a label on it like this implies that they are at the same level as the Chinese and Russian official state channels and lapdog institutions, which is the effect that Musk is going for here, which clearly is unfair to the NPR. Any attempt to whitewash even aspects of it is in part giving credit to it and I'm just not going to carry Musk's water on this. It's a petty move by a petty person, who uses the platform that he bought to further his new best buddies interests by fomenting distrust in media institutions that he can't buy or control.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has. You can make your own judgements about how influential that conflict is for different outlets, but the existence of it cannot be denied. If you think labelling the conflict of interest is worthwhile (as other social media platforms also do), then you have to do it for all outlets that have it. Otherwise you’re revealing that you’re actually pursing some other alternative agenda. Personally I think it’s a stupid idea in general. But that’s because I’m against any organisation attempting to establish itself as an authority over the concept of the truth.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        > NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has. Sorry, but that is factually incorrect.
burkaman 4y ago
It's not up to them, the 4% of their revenue that comes from federal funds comes to them through member station payments. They don't control the member stations or how they are funded. Also, how could they be any more open about this? If you listen to any NPR member station you'll hear an acknowledgement of federal funds like once an hour.
vicktour 4y ago
I am not sure what you mean by them being open about it. Looks to me that they are open about the funding they get. Them getting grants to service communities that are not profitable doesn't mean that they take marching orders from Washington.
jppittma 4y ago
I feel like you're acting in bad faith conflating "public" and "state" in this instance. Wikipedia is an apt comparison that receives the vast majority of its funding through donations. It has received grants, but it's not "state run media" at all. If the bar for being state affiliated is receiving money from the federal government, then I'm sure every news outlet and business of reasonable size qualifies (especially after the PPP loans).

jacquesm 4y ago

NPR needs money and they need editorial freedom, they seem to have both. I really can't fault them for that, editorial independence is the yardstick by which media should be judged unless there is outright ownership.

nostromo 4y ago
Money can be easily tracked. Editorial independence cannot be. I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. They know member donations are their biggest funding source, so they largely tell their audience what they want to hear. Put another way, I don't think perfect editorial independence exists. Everyone knows where their bread is being buttered. Having a badge on Twitter saying you're independent would be entirely a judgement call.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. Not even close from my outsider perspective.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. I... don't know. When the topic comes up there sure are a lot of us NPR listeners who are in rather a love-hate relationship with it, leaning toward "hate". Half the time I'm listening I'm shaking my head at how very self-parody-like NPR they're being or yelling at them to stop doing such shitty coverage. Like, the best news on my local station, far and away, is when they rebroadcast BBC content. If I could tune into actual BBC stations when driving, I'd probably listen to that a lot more than NPR. These days especially, NPR's only got a very-few programs I'd bother to save from a fire, as it were, or that I even might go out of my way to listen to when not in the car. It's just that there's not a lot of better news/commentary/talk programming on the radio dial.
  - Phileosopher 4y ago
    I agree, but in many ways it's a product of syndication. When you get out of that influence (e.g., independently published podcasters) the scope of quality becomes _much_ broader. I'm old enough to remember finding good-quality content on NPR, but I now look toward podcasts in the special interest I'm looking for to find good-quality audio-streamed information.
AmericanChopper 4y ago
State funding of media, regardless of how it’s structured, creates an obvious conflict of interest with editorial freedom. Theoretically it’s possible for a state funded media company to exercise editorial freedom, just like it would be theoretically possible for a climate study funded by ExxonMobile to exercise academic freedom, but not without acknowledging that the conflict of interest exists. Maybe they are a high integrity organisation, but the existence of this conflict of interest isn’t really up for debate. Maybe it’s not necessary for any state funded media to be labelled on Twitter, but if you’re going to label any of it, then you should label all of it.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The NPR makes no secret of its funding. But stamping a label on it like this implies that they are at the same level as the Chinese and Russian official state channels and lapdog institutions, which is the effect that Musk is going for here, which clearly is unfair to the NPR. Any attempt to whitewash even aspects of it is in part giving credit to it and I'm just not going to carry Musk's water on this. It's a petty move by a petty person, who uses the platform that he bought to further his new best buddies interests by fomenting distrust in media institutions that he can't buy or control.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has. You can make your own judgements about how influential that conflict is for different outlets, but the existence of it cannot be denied. If you think labelling the conflict of interest is worthwhile (as other social media platforms also do), then you have to do it for all outlets that have it. Otherwise you’re revealing that you’re actually pursing some other alternative agenda. Personally I think it’s a stupid idea in general. But that’s because I’m against any organisation attempting to establish itself as an authority over the concept of the truth.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      > NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has. Sorry, but that is factually incorrect.

burkaman 4y ago

It's not up to them, the 4% of their revenue that comes from federal funds comes to them through member station payments. They don't control the member stations or how they are funded. Also, how could they be any more open about this? If you listen to any NPR member station you'll hear an acknowledgement of federal funds like once an hour.

vicktour 4y ago

I am not sure what you mean by them being open about it. Looks to me that they are open about the funding they get. Them getting grants to service communities that are not profitable doesn't mean that they take marching orders from Washington.

jppittma 4y ago

I feel like you're acting in bad faith conflating "public" and "state" in this instance. Wikipedia is an apt comparison that receives the vast majority of its funding through donations. It has received grants, but it's not "state run media" at all. If the bar for being state affiliated is receiving money from the federal government, then I'm sure every news outlet and business of reasonable size qualifies (especially after the PPP loans).