9 ms·

> they receive only a tiny percentage of their funding from the government There are at least two ways they get government funding: - direct funding from the

> they receive only a tiny percentage of their funding from the government There are at least two ways they get government funding: - direct funding from the federal government - payment from member stations (at least 31% of revenue) who are themselves supported by government funding Without looking at the funding sources of each NPR member station, it's hard to come up with a good estimate, but it's probably a double digit percentage, which exceeds what I consider 'tiny'.

jacquesm 4y ago
Yes, and this gives their funders editorial control how?
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  I was so surprised by the first statement in your comment, that I stopped reading right there, and searched online to see if I could confirm/deny the statement. Then I wrote a reply without reading the rest of your comment. I didn't say anything about editorial control.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That's the thing that matters. The funding isn't relevant, but making a ruckus about the funding is the tool through which Musk has plausible deniability that this was ever about editorial control. It is factually correct but conveys no information other than misdirection and you are falling for it hook, line and sinker. NPR has a lot of staffers, want to bet that at least a number of them have prior government employment on their CVs? Want to bet that some of them will leave NPR for government? That too would be utterly irrelevant, but you could make a nice argument about it and maybe even prove it to be factually correct. In the end it's all just noise and no signal. State affiliated media are those media institutions that are editorially controlled by the nation state where they are based, and funding is secondary to that by a very large distance.
    - rahimnathwani 4y ago
      > you are falling for it hook, line and sinker I haven't made any statement (nor drawn any conclusion) about whether NPR's content is controlled or influenced by any level of government. So I'm not sure what I've fallen for? I've only talked about funding. That may be irrelevant, but I only talked about it in response to something you brought up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        The whole point is that this discussion is the result of a label that is applied maliciously, focusing on the label and/or the accuracy of the label misses the point: the label should not have been applied because historically it has been applied on entities that are vastly different from the NPR. So now you have to wonder why it was applied, instead of trying to figure out if it applies or not.
        haberman 4y ago
        > So now you have to wonder why it was applied, instead of trying to figure out if it applies or not. Now the question is whether you are willing to apply the same analysis to Twitter's decision to apply its "Hacked Materials Policy" in 2020 in order to block any discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        See other comments on exactly that subject in this thread. Really, it's a bit like 'but her emails' or 'Benghazi' at this point. Let's not pollute HN, shall we?
        haberman 4y ago
        Asking this question is the only way of determining whether a person is acting from a truly principled position, or whether they are using situational ethics. The only true principle is one that binds your allies and your opponents equally. If it only applies to your opponents, then it's merely a rationalization. I'm interested in finding like-minded people who are committed to applying principles equally. It's the only way of mediating conflict that does not devolve into pure tribalism. Unfortunately few people seem to be interested.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    The only reason in theory for a place to put a "state media" label is to imply the State has editorial control.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    it sounds, then, that you'd agree with an accurate compromise: "receives a small amount of funding from the federal government but maintains editorial independence" all true, so better than the current label
    - rahimnathwani 4y ago
      yes
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Why else do they get this source of funding that other networks don't have? (Though this is still just a theory and not reason to slap "govt-affiliated" on them. "Govt-funded" is fair.)
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    You'll be more persuasive you actually answer his question instead of further casting aspersions.
    - hot_gril 4y ago
      I don't have evidence of federal editorial control over NPR, nor does anyone have evidence of the absence, which is why I say that only "govt-funded" is a fair label.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You should look into their origin story if you want an answer. And no, Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control. The BBC in the UK, the NOS in NL, NPR in the United States, and so on are all official channels but they also have their own editorial staff and only in very rare cases does the government directly intervene in the production (and usually simultaneously on other channels as well). So this is simply Elon playing stupid games, which he seems to be very good at.
    - hot_gril 4y ago
      NPR was created after the signing of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 aiming to increase public education through media, which doesn't really answer my question. > Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control But they're govt-funded. BBC is too.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        They get this source of funding because that is how they were created and entities that were created through a different mechanism (for instance: to become the mouthpiece for a political stream or for commercial reasons) are a different kind of animal. The government allocates funds to many things that it may consider useful, such as health care, infrastructure and education. This does not necessarily imply that the government does this to create a mechanism of influence, as opposed to their counterparts in countries that are run as dictatorships. Naming the NPR in the same breath as the Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean state media is mistaken at best and maliciously dishonest at worst. Knowing what I know about Musk it is a fair bet we're looking at the latter.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  If I'm giving you a regular flow of money that keeps you well fed and housed in a nice area, you're going to at least subconsciously care about how I perceive you and if I approve of the things you're doing, because I have the power to cut off that flow of money at any time. This is why many wealthy individuals and organizations donate to both political parties. The implicit threat of losing a flow of money you've become accustomed to is more powerful that the vague promise of a new flow of money that you can currently live without. Old money and power don't control things with a loud command, but with a subtle flash of facial displeasure.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it. But from where I'm sitting - far outside of the USA - they offer some of the most balanced and clean reporting out there (and that includes the BBC).
    - kube-system 4y ago
      I agree with your perception. There are many within the US that simply have a different window of what they find to be acceptable sources, topics, and opinions to entertain. The word 'balanced' implies a sort of central tendency, which can vary depending on what someone finds worthy of consideration.
    - Auracle 4y ago
      They aren’t even slightly balanced anymore, especially their radio stuff. They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. I didn’t hear a single positive thing about anything the Trump administration did during his presidency, only after the last election. You can’t turn on your local station without hearing some identity politics within a few minutes - either from them or NPR itself. They often only have one “side” being interviewed for their reporting. It just so happens that Republicans want to pull their funding and Democrats don’t. That’s a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation. It’s sad because they used to be pretty good, and were probably the last bastion of somewhat balanced reporting in our country.
burkaman 4y ago
Why not just look at the NPR page we're discussing, which says 13% of public radio station revenue is from federal funds? 13% of 31% is 4%. Edit: The 13% is from all government funds, not just federal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  Because not all government funding is federal funding. Random example from an NPR member station's web site: KCRW is supported, in part, by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through the Los Angeles County Department of Arts & Culture. The Department's Organizational Grant Program helps fund a wide variety of arts, culture, and music programs that you hear on air each day!
  - burkaman 4y ago
    I apologize for my imprecise language. The 13% I quoted includes "Federal, state and local governments". Again this is all on the web page we're all discussing, in a very easy-to-understand chart.
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      [flagged]
- guywithahat 4y ago
  NPR has a history of downplaying their government funding, I'm not sure if you should use them as your main source. I know in the past they've said it was around 5%, while independent investigations found it was closer to 20-40%
  - burkaman 4y ago
    That's the source we're discussing here. If you have some evidence that they're lying about this then please post it, I would genuinely be interested to see it.
petsfed 4y ago
>- payment from member stations (at least 31% of revenue) who are themselves supported by government funding I have a hard time understanding this as "state sponsored", much less as evidence that NPR has ceded editorial control. NPR estimates (and InfluenceWatch believes this estimate) that about 4% of their revenue ultimately comes from federal, state and local governments [0], via direct grants to NPR, and via grants to member stations that are in turn paid to NPR. InfluenceWatch, you'll note, is run by the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank which has an axe to grind about NPR's apparent left-wing bias. This feels a lot like the accusations against Bellingcat that they are state-sponsored/controlled. And I think those accusations are equally specious. Accepting money via indirect grants is not at all the same as accepting payment for invoiced work. 0. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/#funding https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Indeed. Meanwhile, the message has had its intended effect and NPR is now seen as 'tainted' by the people who would do a lot better to listen more to NPR than to various other far more biased news sources. It's the same old playbook, and Musk getting away with this is highly annoying.

jacquesm 4y ago

Yes, and this gives their funders editorial control how?

rahimnathwani 4y ago
I was so surprised by the first statement in your comment, that I stopped reading right there, and searched online to see if I could confirm/deny the statement. Then I wrote a reply without reading the rest of your comment. I didn't say anything about editorial control.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That's the thing that matters. The funding isn't relevant, but making a ruckus about the funding is the tool through which Musk has plausible deniability that this was ever about editorial control. It is factually correct but conveys no information other than misdirection and you are falling for it hook, line and sinker. NPR has a lot of staffers, want to bet that at least a number of them have prior government employment on their CVs? Want to bet that some of them will leave NPR for government? That too would be utterly irrelevant, but you could make a nice argument about it and maybe even prove it to be factually correct. In the end it's all just noise and no signal. State affiliated media are those media institutions that are editorially controlled by the nation state where they are based, and funding is secondary to that by a very large distance.
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    > you are falling for it hook, line and sinker I haven't made any statement (nor drawn any conclusion) about whether NPR's content is controlled or influenced by any level of government. So I'm not sure what I've fallen for? I've only talked about funding. That may be irrelevant, but I only talked about it in response to something you brought up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      The whole point is that this discussion is the result of a label that is applied maliciously, focusing on the label and/or the accuracy of the label misses the point: the label should not have been applied because historically it has been applied on entities that are vastly different from the NPR. So now you have to wonder why it was applied, instead of trying to figure out if it applies or not.
      - haberman 4y ago
        > So now you have to wonder why it was applied, instead of trying to figure out if it applies or not. Now the question is whether you are willing to apply the same analysis to Twitter's decision to apply its "Hacked Materials Policy" in 2020 in order to block any discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        See other comments on exactly that subject in this thread. Really, it's a bit like 'but her emails' or 'Benghazi' at this point. Let's not pollute HN, shall we?
        haberman 4y ago
        Asking this question is the only way of determining whether a person is acting from a truly principled position, or whether they are using situational ethics. The only true principle is one that binds your allies and your opponents equally. If it only applies to your opponents, then it's merely a rationalization. I'm interested in finding like-minded people who are committed to applying principles equally. It's the only way of mediating conflict that does not devolve into pure tribalism. Unfortunately few people seem to be interested.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  The only reason in theory for a place to put a "state media" label is to imply the State has editorial control.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  it sounds, then, that you'd agree with an accurate compromise: "receives a small amount of funding from the federal government but maintains editorial independence" all true, so better than the current label
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    yes
hot_gril 4y ago
Why else do they get this source of funding that other networks don't have? (Though this is still just a theory and not reason to slap "govt-affiliated" on them. "Govt-funded" is fair.)
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  You'll be more persuasive you actually answer his question instead of further casting aspersions.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    I don't have evidence of federal editorial control over NPR, nor does anyone have evidence of the absence, which is why I say that only "govt-funded" is a fair label.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  You should look into their origin story if you want an answer. And no, Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control. The BBC in the UK, the NOS in NL, NPR in the United States, and so on are all official channels but they also have their own editorial staff and only in very rare cases does the government directly intervene in the production (and usually simultaneously on other channels as well). So this is simply Elon playing stupid games, which he seems to be very good at.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    NPR was created after the signing of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 aiming to increase public education through media, which doesn't really answer my question. > Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control But they're govt-funded. BBC is too.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      They get this source of funding because that is how they were created and entities that were created through a different mechanism (for instance: to become the mouthpiece for a political stream or for commercial reasons) are a different kind of animal. The government allocates funds to many things that it may consider useful, such as health care, infrastructure and education. This does not necessarily imply that the government does this to create a mechanism of influence, as opposed to their counterparts in countries that are run as dictatorships. Naming the NPR in the same breath as the Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean state media is mistaken at best and maliciously dishonest at worst. Knowing what I know about Musk it is a fair bet we're looking at the latter.
anonporridge 4y ago
If I'm giving you a regular flow of money that keeps you well fed and housed in a nice area, you're going to at least subconsciously care about how I perceive you and if I approve of the things you're doing, because I have the power to cut off that flow of money at any time. This is why many wealthy individuals and organizations donate to both political parties. The implicit threat of losing a flow of money you've become accustomed to is more powerful that the vague promise of a new flow of money that you can currently live without. Old money and power don't control things with a loud command, but with a subtle flash of facial displeasure.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it. But from where I'm sitting - far outside of the USA - they offer some of the most balanced and clean reporting out there (and that includes the BBC).
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I agree with your perception. There are many within the US that simply have a different window of what they find to be acceptable sources, topics, and opinions to entertain. The word 'balanced' implies a sort of central tendency, which can vary depending on what someone finds worthy of consideration.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    They aren’t even slightly balanced anymore, especially their radio stuff. They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. I didn’t hear a single positive thing about anything the Trump administration did during his presidency, only after the last election. You can’t turn on your local station without hearing some identity politics within a few minutes - either from them or NPR itself. They often only have one “side” being interviewed for their reporting. It just so happens that Republicans want to pull their funding and Democrats don’t. That’s a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation. It’s sad because they used to be pretty good, and were probably the last bastion of somewhat balanced reporting in our country.

burkaman 4y ago

Why not just look at the NPR page we're discussing, which says 13% of public radio station revenue is from federal funds? 13% of 31% is 4%. Edit: The 13% is from all government funds, not just federal.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rahimnathwani 4y ago
Because not all government funding is federal funding. Random example from an NPR member station's web site: KCRW is supported, in part, by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through the Los Angeles County Department of Arts & Culture. The Department's Organizational Grant Program helps fund a wide variety of arts, culture, and music programs that you hear on air each day!
- burkaman 4y ago
  I apologize for my imprecise language. The 13% I quoted includes "Federal, state and local governments". Again this is all on the web page we're all discussing, in a very easy-to-understand chart.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    [flagged]
guywithahat 4y ago
NPR has a history of downplaying their government funding, I'm not sure if you should use them as your main source. I know in the past they've said it was around 5%, while independent investigations found it was closer to 20-40%
- burkaman 4y ago
  That's the source we're discussing here. If you have some evidence that they're lying about this then please post it, I would genuinely be interested to see it.

petsfed 4y ago

>- payment from member stations (at least 31% of revenue) who are themselves supported by government funding I have a hard time understanding this as "state sponsored", much less as evidence that NPR has ceded editorial control. NPR estimates (and InfluenceWatch believes this estimate) that about 4% of their revenue ultimately comes from federal, state and local governments [0], via direct grants to NPR, and via grants to member stations that are in turn paid to NPR. InfluenceWatch, you'll note, is run by the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank which has an axe to grind about NPR's apparent left-wing bias. This feels a lot like the accusations against Bellingcat that they are state-sponsored/controlled. And I think those accusations are equally specious. Accepting money via indirect grants is not at all the same as accepting payment for invoiced work. 0. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/#funding https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra...

jacquesm 4y ago
Indeed. Meanwhile, the message has had its intended effect and NPR is now seen as 'tainted' by the people who would do a lot better to listen more to NPR than to various other far more biased news sources. It's the same old playbook, and Musk getting away with this is highly annoying.