5 ms·

Various companies in China are on US embargo lists because they are state-affiliated. Parsing out "media" companies is just hyper-targeting of ire. All companie

Various companies in China are on US embargo lists because they are state-affiliated. Parsing out "media" companies is just hyper-targeting of ire. All companies that post tweets are effectively media. So why only highlight "news media" on a publication app such as Twitter?

fortuna86 4y ago
China controls their state media, NPR/BBC etc. have state funding but remain editorially independent.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Yes, I know. Just pointing out that media isn't the only industry that's state funded to the person who's comment was just "media".
- chapium 4y ago
  That seems like a contradiction.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    This is why you can't stop at "who funded it" as an indicator of bias and editorial control, but have to look at what is actually produced as well. Clair Cameron Patterson famously took money from the leaded gasoline industry to help fund his research demonstrating the harms of leaded gasoline.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    If you build editorial independent into a legal charter, and have a government that isn't authoritarian and protects the rule of law, why is it a contradiction?
- splistud 4y ago
  [dead]
- klooney 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    I know China requires Communist party committees within most large businesses. It would surprise me if this is not also the case for their news media. Note that these aren't affiliations, but actual political organizations within the businesses. The Republicans control the house. The US is not a land of political "rulers", at least not at the moment (arguments can be made for FDR's presidency).
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
The label is "state-affiliated media" so it makes sense that the label isn't applied to Twitter or SpaceX, not because they aren't state-affiliated, but because they aren't media. And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased, as opposed to e.g. Raytheon which is objectively state-affiliated but nobody expects to be doing objective reporting. If a media outlet is being funded by the government then readers should know that because it could affect their coverage if they fear losing that funding as a result of critical reporting. This directly applies to NPR because Republicans regularly threaten to remove its public funding in response to their coverage. The better criticism is, why is the label applied to NPR but not e.g. MSNBC? Pretty sure at least Comcast (MSNBC's parent company) receives a significant amount of government funding.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased This has never been the case. Never. While some journalism sources operate in a facts-only manner, all journalistic sources have bias as to which stories they research. And historically, the press has been about propaganda, editorials, and selling papers at least as much as about reporting. Labeling news organization as "government-funded" is less informative than labeling them as "propaganda" or "editorializing". The major reason to so label them is, itself, propaganda. With the second reason being a warning to the reader to practice even more diligence than normal.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > Labeling news organization as "government-funded" is less informative than labeling them as "propaganda" or "editorializing". By your own reasoning, those other labels would be redundant. Whereas "government-affiliated" makes the reader aware of a specific kind of bias that not all media entities are subject to.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago

fortuna86 4y ago

China controls their state media, NPR/BBC etc. have state funding but remain editorially independent.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Yes, I know. Just pointing out that media isn't the only industry that's state funded to the person who's comment was just "media".
chapium 4y ago
That seems like a contradiction.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  This is why you can't stop at "who funded it" as an indicator of bias and editorial control, but have to look at what is actually produced as well. Clair Cameron Patterson famously took money from the leaded gasoline industry to help fund his research demonstrating the harms of leaded gasoline.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  If you build editorial independent into a legal charter, and have a government that isn't authoritarian and protects the rule of law, why is it a contradiction?
splistud 4y ago
[dead]
klooney 4y ago
[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  I know China requires Communist party committees within most large businesses. It would surprise me if this is not also the case for their news media. Note that these aren't affiliations, but actual political organizations within the businesses. The Republicans control the house. The US is not a land of political "rulers", at least not at the moment (arguments can be made for FDR's presidency).

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

The label is "state-affiliated media" so it makes sense that the label isn't applied to Twitter or SpaceX, not because they aren't state-affiliated, but because they aren't media. And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased, as opposed to e.g. Raytheon which is objectively state-affiliated but nobody expects to be doing objective reporting. If a media outlet is being funded by the government then readers should know that because it could affect their coverage if they fear losing that funding as a result of critical reporting. This directly applies to NPR because Republicans regularly threaten to remove its public funding in response to their coverage. The better criticism is, why is the label applied to NPR but not e.g. MSNBC? Pretty sure at least Comcast (MSNBC's parent company) receives a significant amount of government funding.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased This has never been the case. Never. While some journalism sources operate in a facts-only manner, all journalistic sources have bias as to which stories they research. And historically, the press has been about propaganda, editorials, and selling papers at least as much as about reporting. Labeling news organization as "government-funded" is less informative than labeling them as "propaganda" or "editorializing". The major reason to so label them is, itself, propaganda. With the second reason being a warning to the reader to practice even more diligence than normal.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > Labeling news organization as "government-funded" is less informative than labeling them as "propaganda" or "editorializing". By your own reasoning, those other labels would be redundant. Whereas "government-affiliated" makes the reader aware of a specific kind of bias that not all media entities are subject to.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago