4 ms·

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 dif

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.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Media companies receiving public funding is a conflict of interest with editorial independence, both RT and NPR receiving public funding. These are facts.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The fact is that the one is a state sponsored mouthpiece and the other is a editorially independent organization. If you have proof that the NPR is a mouthpiece for the US government then now would be a fine time to provide it, otherwise it is just trying to throw shade in the exact same way that Elon Musk is trying to.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      There are many reasons other than funding to criticize RT, but RT and NPR have the same conflict of interested created by their funding sources. If you’re not able to appreciate this very simple fact then I would highly suggest you engage in some self-reflection.
      - mcv 4y ago
        Funding doesn't have to be a conflict of interest depending on how it's organised. But Twitter's own definition of "state affiliated media" is not about funding, but about editorial control, where NPR is independent. Labeling NPR as "state affiliated" is clearly wrong according to Twitter's own definition.
- koobock 4y ago
  [flagged]
toast0 4y ago
NPR is not Stars and Stripes, Voice of America or even the BBC. Assuming 4% in direct government funding (from all levels) as estimated elsewhere in the thread, plus some amount in government subsidization of donations to a registered non-profit; the fiscal contributions from government is meaningful, but not sufficient to assume it biases coverage. Stars and Stripes has a mix of funding, including about half its budget from the department of defense, but has editorial independence; although I imagine it's hard not to be influenced. Even Voice of America has safeguards for editorial independence, although its budget is fully state funded.

jacquesm 4y ago

> NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has. Sorry, but that is factually incorrect.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
Media companies receiving public funding is a conflict of interest with editorial independence, both RT and NPR receiving public funding. These are facts.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The fact is that the one is a state sponsored mouthpiece and the other is a editorially independent organization. If you have proof that the NPR is a mouthpiece for the US government then now would be a fine time to provide it, otherwise it is just trying to throw shade in the exact same way that Elon Musk is trying to.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    There are many reasons other than funding to criticize RT, but RT and NPR have the same conflict of interested created by their funding sources. If you’re not able to appreciate this very simple fact then I would highly suggest you engage in some self-reflection.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Funding doesn't have to be a conflict of interest depending on how it's organised. But Twitter's own definition of "state affiliated media" is not about funding, but about editorial control, where NPR is independent. Labeling NPR as "state affiliated" is clearly wrong according to Twitter's own definition.
koobock 4y ago
[flagged]

toast0 4y ago

NPR is not Stars and Stripes, Voice of America or even the BBC. Assuming 4% in direct government funding (from all levels) as estimated elsewhere in the thread, plus some amount in government subsidization of donations to a registered non-profit; the fiscal contributions from government is meaningful, but not sufficient to assume it biases coverage. Stars and Stripes has a mix of funding, including about half its budget from the department of defense, but has editorial independence; although I imagine it's hard not to be influenced. Even Voice of America has safeguards for editorial independence, although its budget is fully state funded.