3 ms·

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.

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.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        I think you will find that dragging in unrelated subjects isn't going to help make your argument because you are trying to find purchase on the individuals that you are talking to rather than to discuss the subject matter. Applying principles equally implies that the subjects are comparable, which may be the case in your world view but you will find that your worldview rarely if ever overlaps the worldview of another person. So instead of trying to match worldviews we discuss topics individually of each other so that there is room for less than 100% black/white differentiation. Given two subjects that two people may or may not agree on there will be four populations of results given a large enough sample size. Whether you believe that those people are able to rationally apply their own principles or not isn't really the question the question is whether they believe that they are doing so and cherry picking your subjects doesn't give you more grip on their worldview, it only serves to reinforce your own.
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

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.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        I think you will find that dragging in unrelated subjects isn't going to help make your argument because you are trying to find purchase on the individuals that you are talking to rather than to discuss the subject matter. Applying principles equally implies that the subjects are comparable, which may be the case in your world view but you will find that your worldview rarely if ever overlaps the worldview of another person. So instead of trying to match worldviews we discuss topics individually of each other so that there is room for less than 100% black/white differentiation. Given two subjects that two people may or may not agree on there will be four populations of results given a large enough sample size. Whether you believe that those people are able to rationally apply their own principles or not isn't really the question the question is whether they believe that they are doing so and cherry picking your subjects doesn't give you more grip on their worldview, it only serves to reinforce your own.

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