8 ms·

It's still federally funded. Twitter probably shouldn't have gotten into labeling who is and isn't state funded, but if they are, US/UK/NATO orgs should be fai

It's still federally funded. Twitter probably shouldn't have gotten into labeling who is and isn't state funded, but if they are, US/UK/NATO orgs should be fair game alongside the Russians and Chinese. NPR labeling the "state-funded media" claim as "false" when its trivially, factually true is a bad look for them as a fact-based organization.

jacquesm 4y ago
It's irrelevant, the label implies control like with the Russians and the Chinese, and that control simply isn't there.
- woooooo 4y ago
  1. "True but we think it's irrelevant" does not equate to "false". 2. "But america are the good guys" is the exact kind of thing you see uniformly from all American media including NPR.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    You really believe that NPR and the BBC belong in the same basket as Russian and Chinese state media?
    - woooooo 4y ago
      Fish don't know they're in water. If you've been ingesting a narrative since middle school, and the BBC reinforces it, well that's just good neutral unbiased reporting.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        It's always telling when people with narratives to push don't directly answer questions.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        I don’t regularly read the BBC or NPR. I have watched the BBC skirmish with government over their independence and it’s an active fight (see Gary Lineker fighter recently, interesting, on Twitter). Do you see these fights for independence in Chinese and Russian news channels? And do you really think them similar to the BBC and NPR?
        woooooo 4y ago
        You will never, ever see a mainstream western news org demonize the US the way they do to Russia and China routinely. Are they the exact same? No, but they're not so different when you zoom out. You don't need explicit censorship when you can manufacture consent at the hiring and promotion stages.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Do you think the US, China and Russia similar? I have a lot of criticism for the US, but the US can at least punish its rulers at the ballot box. The US isn’t chucking journalists out the window or vanishing them on a regular basis. Objectively, it’s hard say the three are similar, as two of those countries deserve more criticism. They are not the same when you zoom out. I am not an American.
        woooooo 4y ago
        I could criticize or compliment all 3 depending on the topic or my mood. If we're so much better in the west, maybe we can hold ourselves accountable and question our own biases.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        If we are so much worse, why isn’t accountability and criticism a thing in a Russia and China?
      - alfor 4y ago
        Exactly, I have been trying to explain it to people here (Québec/Canada) Here people believe the CBC is an impartial view of reality, it’s through that filter they see all the events of the world. Information that contradict their narrative become disinformation or conspiration. Or you get labeled racist/transphobe/Trump supporter at the first doubt Give me little hope for our country at the moment.
        d23 4y ago
        It's not that it's impartial or unbiased. It's that it's not an editorial arm for the state. The United States doesn't even have a centralized, consistent state-run party that would exercise consistent pressure on NPR to publish certain stories or frame them in a certain way. It's an absurd comparison to link these to Chinese or Russian state-affiliated media.
        skrowl 4y ago
        [flagged]
        d23 4y ago
        The burden on is on you to provide evidence for your claims, not for me to go fishing for them. Regardless, I doubt whatever you have in mind is anything similar to an authoritarian regime that literally murders critical journalists and poisons opposition politicians. It is an absurd comparison.
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        It doesn't have to be on the level of russia or china to be bad. What a weird arbitrary goalpost.
        alfor 4y ago
        Russia and China didn’t start that way, it’s a process.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    NPR being state affiliated is false. NPR being funded by the state is not, but it leads people to believe that it's affiliated with the state, which is false.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      Funding is a very important kind of affiliation, I would think.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        It could be but it doesn't have to be. That's why editorial independence is a thing. And that's why you'll see broadcasters in Russia, North Korea, Iran and China try their level best not to criticize the ruling party and ruling individuals of the countries that they have their base in because if they did the consequences would likely be much further reaching than those related to funding. The fact that this needs to be spelled out is a bit sad. One of the first things an editorial board of an actual news service does is to assert its independence, if it can't do that then they will resign in a very public way that leaves no doubt about what is going on. For instance, the large number of people that resigned from Twitter when Musk took over (and that was besides the ones that he fired because he couldn't get them to do his bidding) made exactly such a statement.
  - davorak 4y ago
    State funded media is a phrase, it has meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. Wikipedia's 'State media' page seems to have it covered: > State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly. [1] Even that page makes a distinction between state funded and state media[2], but that is not how youtube[3] or others [4], [5], and I am sure many others[6 time based google] do not make the distinction. For better or worse 'State funded media' is often interchangeable with 'state media' and NPR is not state media even if some of its funds come from the state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=State%20media%20or%20government%20media,by%20the%20state%20or%20government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=State%20me.... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=Not%20to%20be%20confused%20with%20public%20broadcasting%20and%20public%20sector%20media%20(state%2Dfunded)%2C%20which%20is%20funded%20directly%20or%20indirectly%20by%20the%20state%20or%20government%20but%20over%20which%20the%20state%20or%20government%20does%20not%20have%20editorial%20control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=Not%20to%2.... [3] https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/state-media-warning-labels-can-counteract-the-effects-of-foreign-misinformation/ https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/state-media-wa... [4]https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2019/03/whats-wrong-with-state-media/#:~:text=But%20is%20there,a%20state%2Dfunded https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2019/03/whats-wrong-with-st... [5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1940161220922832 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/194016122092283... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22State+funded+media%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS881US881&sxsrf=APwXEdcIPUXscBWClHLNbvDnEW07ys3uRg%3A1681327891612&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1990%2Ccd_max%3A2021&tbm=#ip=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22State+funded+media%22&rlz...
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  What do you think about Al Jazeera's funding and level of control?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Trustworthy when it is about non-local affairs, hopelessly biased when it is about local affairs. But Al Jazeera doesn't really pretend to be unbiased. Sometimes I'm positively surprised by the quality of their reporting. But them being Qatar based the amount of local news that would affect me is nil. They definitely offer an interesting perspective on the world as seen from the Arabic perspective, meanwhile I'm well aware of the fact that their English language news isn't always a 1:1 with their coverage of the same subject in languages that I can not read unaided.
    - ghiculescu 4y ago
      Replace "Al Jazeera" with "NPR" in your comment and you're also spot on.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      Sorry, but aljazeera is on the level of RT. That you think otherwise just shows that you are more willing to ignore a biais when it is in your favor. It has always been known in the arabic world that AJ is a complete puppet of the Qatari royal family (and even staffed by members of the royal family) and it can't be a coincidence that AJ's coverage is almost always a mirror image of qatari foreign policy talking points/positions. It is the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, just with more international presence.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Reading comprehension failure on your part, or we're in violent agreement which you somehow chose to voice as disagreement.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        The point is that Al Jazeera exhibits a lot of bias on international issues that are relevant to the Qataris, not just local news. This includes US foreign policy, environmental things, and global economic policy. They are basically RT (think about how RT covered george floyd), but generally allied with the west.
preseinger 4y ago
the claim is trivially and factually false what are you talking about

jacquesm 4y ago

It's irrelevant, the label implies control like with the Russians and the Chinese, and that control simply isn't there.

woooooo 4y ago
1. "True but we think it's irrelevant" does not equate to "false". 2. "But america are the good guys" is the exact kind of thing you see uniformly from all American media including NPR.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  You really believe that NPR and the BBC belong in the same basket as Russian and Chinese state media?
  - woooooo 4y ago
    Fish don't know they're in water. If you've been ingesting a narrative since middle school, and the BBC reinforces it, well that's just good neutral unbiased reporting.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      It's always telling when people with narratives to push don't directly answer questions.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      I don’t regularly read the BBC or NPR. I have watched the BBC skirmish with government over their independence and it’s an active fight (see Gary Lineker fighter recently, interesting, on Twitter). Do you see these fights for independence in Chinese and Russian news channels? And do you really think them similar to the BBC and NPR?
      - woooooo 4y ago
        You will never, ever see a mainstream western news org demonize the US the way they do to Russia and China routinely. Are they the exact same? No, but they're not so different when you zoom out. You don't need explicit censorship when you can manufacture consent at the hiring and promotion stages.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Do you think the US, China and Russia similar? I have a lot of criticism for the US, but the US can at least punish its rulers at the ballot box. The US isn’t chucking journalists out the window or vanishing them on a regular basis. Objectively, it’s hard say the three are similar, as two of those countries deserve more criticism. They are not the same when you zoom out. I am not an American.
        woooooo 4y ago
        I could criticize or compliment all 3 depending on the topic or my mood. If we're so much better in the west, maybe we can hold ourselves accountable and question our own biases.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        If we are so much worse, why isn’t accountability and criticism a thing in a Russia and China?
    - alfor 4y ago
      Exactly, I have been trying to explain it to people here (Québec/Canada) Here people believe the CBC is an impartial view of reality, it’s through that filter they see all the events of the world. Information that contradict their narrative become disinformation or conspiration. Or you get labeled racist/transphobe/Trump supporter at the first doubt Give me little hope for our country at the moment.
      - d23 4y ago
        It's not that it's impartial or unbiased. It's that it's not an editorial arm for the state. The United States doesn't even have a centralized, consistent state-run party that would exercise consistent pressure on NPR to publish certain stories or frame them in a certain way. It's an absurd comparison to link these to Chinese or Russian state-affiliated media.
        skrowl 4y ago
        [flagged]
        d23 4y ago
        The burden on is on you to provide evidence for your claims, not for me to go fishing for them. Regardless, I doubt whatever you have in mind is anything similar to an authoritarian regime that literally murders critical journalists and poisons opposition politicians. It is an absurd comparison.
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        It doesn't have to be on the level of russia or china to be bad. What a weird arbitrary goalpost.
        alfor 4y ago
        Russia and China didn’t start that way, it’s a process.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  NPR being state affiliated is false. NPR being funded by the state is not, but it leads people to believe that it's affiliated with the state, which is false.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    Funding is a very important kind of affiliation, I would think.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      It could be but it doesn't have to be. That's why editorial independence is a thing. And that's why you'll see broadcasters in Russia, North Korea, Iran and China try their level best not to criticize the ruling party and ruling individuals of the countries that they have their base in because if they did the consequences would likely be much further reaching than those related to funding. The fact that this needs to be spelled out is a bit sad. One of the first things an editorial board of an actual news service does is to assert its independence, if it can't do that then they will resign in a very public way that leaves no doubt about what is going on. For instance, the large number of people that resigned from Twitter when Musk took over (and that was besides the ones that he fired because he couldn't get them to do his bidding) made exactly such a statement.
- davorak 4y ago
  State funded media is a phrase, it has meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. Wikipedia's 'State media' page seems to have it covered: > State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly. [1] Even that page makes a distinction between state funded and state media[2], but that is not how youtube[3] or others [4], [5], and I am sure many others[6 time based google] do not make the distinction. For better or worse 'State funded media' is often interchangeable with 'state media' and NPR is not state media even if some of its funds come from the state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=State%20media%20or%20government%20media,by%20the%20state%20or%20government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=State%20me.... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=Not%20to%20be%20confused%20with%20public%20broadcasting%20and%20public%20sector%20media%20(state%2Dfunded)%2C%20which%20is%20funded%20directly%20or%20indirectly%20by%20the%20state%20or%20government%20but%20over%20which%20the%20state%20or%20government%20does%20not%20have%20editorial%20control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media#:~:text=Not%20to%2.... [3] https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/state-media-warning-labels-can-counteract-the-effects-of-foreign-misinformation/ https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/state-media-wa... [4]https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2019/03/whats-wrong-with-state-media/#:~:text=But%20is%20there,a%20state%2Dfunded https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2019/03/whats-wrong-with-st... [5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1940161220922832 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/194016122092283... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22State+funded+media%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS881US881&sxsrf=APwXEdcIPUXscBWClHLNbvDnEW07ys3uRg%3A1681327891612&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1990%2Ccd_max%3A2021&tbm=#ip=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22State+funded+media%22&rlz...
pclmulqdq 4y ago
What do you think about Al Jazeera's funding and level of control?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Trustworthy when it is about non-local affairs, hopelessly biased when it is about local affairs. But Al Jazeera doesn't really pretend to be unbiased. Sometimes I'm positively surprised by the quality of their reporting. But them being Qatar based the amount of local news that would affect me is nil. They definitely offer an interesting perspective on the world as seen from the Arabic perspective, meanwhile I'm well aware of the fact that their English language news isn't always a 1:1 with their coverage of the same subject in languages that I can not read unaided.
  - ghiculescu 4y ago
    Replace "Al Jazeera" with "NPR" in your comment and you're also spot on.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    Sorry, but aljazeera is on the level of RT. That you think otherwise just shows that you are more willing to ignore a biais when it is in your favor. It has always been known in the arabic world that AJ is a complete puppet of the Qatari royal family (and even staffed by members of the royal family) and it can't be a coincidence that AJ's coverage is almost always a mirror image of qatari foreign policy talking points/positions. It is the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, just with more international presence.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Reading comprehension failure on your part, or we're in violent agreement which you somehow chose to voice as disagreement.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        The point is that Al Jazeera exhibits a lot of bias on international issues that are relevant to the Qataris, not just local news. This includes US foreign policy, environmental things, and global economic policy. They are basically RT (think about how RT covered george floyd), but generally allied with the west.

preseinger 4y ago

the claim is trivially and factually false what are you talking about