5 ms·

NPR is propaganda. If NPR was as upstanding as some want to believe, and if this money isn't meaningful, then it should be easy for NPR to give the money back

NPR is propaganda. If NPR was as upstanding as some want to believe, and if this money isn't meaningful, then it should be easy for NPR to give the money back and distance themselves in a way that leaves no room for question. NPR's actions demonstrate how corrupt and depraved they are. The enemy of the people deserve everything that happens to them.

ngetchell 4y ago
Are you saying NPR is corrupt and depraved for leaving Twitter? That seems like a very odd take. I find NPR news to be the most balanced news radio out there.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  There was a time when journalists exposed and reported on the malfeasants of powerful corporations and governments. But when those responsible for reporting on the powerful choose to accept financial contributions from the powerful, then what else do you call it except for corruption and depravity?
  - angoragoats 4y ago
    Please provide evidence that the government exerts any kind of editorial influence (implicit or explicit) over NPR.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      The Public Broadcasting Act created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Act doesn't give the executive branch direct control over the funding of public broadcasting. However, the CPB Board of Directors consists of 9 members, each member serving a 6 year term. The CPB board members are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If you're going to say there's no influence here, you also concede the president has no influence on the make up of the Supreme Court. It's the exact same process.
      - angoragoats 4y ago
        I would of course concede that the president has influence over the makeup of the CBP Board of Directors. That does not necessarily have anything to do with whether the board members are influencing editorial decisions. So you've failed at answering my request by conflating "influence" over the makeup of the board with editorial influence. In fact, the only references I can find to the CPB attempting to influence editorial decisions at NPR were a series of incidents that happened during a Republican administration, and the actions were found to be in violation of the law, and one of the board members resigned as a result.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
The enemy of the people? How'd you get there? What uh... what are you expecting to happen to them, that they will deserve?
angoragoats 4y ago
It’s not about the money being meaningful or not, it’s the fact that the organization was initially labeled as “state-affiliated media” which is blatantly false, going by the common meaning of the term. As I understand it (I don’t use Twitter) the label was later revised to “government-funded media” which is probably correct, but is IMHO a meaningless designation designed to sow distrust. I’m willing to bet every single media organization in the country benefits from government funding somehow. The real issue (and the purpose of the label, at least before it was corrupted by Musk) is whether the government has editorial control over the journalism, which they clearly don’t for NPR. Calling NPR “the enemy of the people” is some Orwellian-level bullshit.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  It's clear Twitter's definition of state-affiliated media is not the same as your definition, but it's being applied consistently. Are you equally outraged at RT's Russia state-affiliated media label?
  - angoragoats 4y ago
    RT is wholly owned by the Russian government. Either you didn't know that and now you're informed, or you did and you were deliberately intending to confuse by conflating a propaganda bureau of the Russian government with an independent network of media outlets that get single-digit percentages of their funding from the state. Either way I'm not going to engage with you further. edit: also, it wasn't "being applied consistently" until they fixed it, as I mentioned in the grandparent post. RT and NPR are fundamentally different, and Twitter even recognized that by changing NPR's label while keeping RT's the same.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      If I understand you correctly, it seems the fundamental difference is what percentage of their finances come from the state. I urge you to reconsider and continue this discussion so we both can learn what exactly is that threshold to be regarded as state-sponsored in your view. Is it 0.0001%, 10%, 51%?

ngetchell 4y ago

Are you saying NPR is corrupt and depraved for leaving Twitter? That seems like a very odd take. I find NPR news to be the most balanced news radio out there.

infamouscow 4y ago
There was a time when journalists exposed and reported on the malfeasants of powerful corporations and governments. But when those responsible for reporting on the powerful choose to accept financial contributions from the powerful, then what else do you call it except for corruption and depravity?
- angoragoats 4y ago
  Please provide evidence that the government exerts any kind of editorial influence (implicit or explicit) over NPR.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    The Public Broadcasting Act created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Act doesn't give the executive branch direct control over the funding of public broadcasting. However, the CPB Board of Directors consists of 9 members, each member serving a 6 year term. The CPB board members are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If you're going to say there's no influence here, you also concede the president has no influence on the make up of the Supreme Court. It's the exact same process.
    - angoragoats 4y ago
      I would of course concede that the president has influence over the makeup of the CBP Board of Directors. That does not necessarily have anything to do with whether the board members are influencing editorial decisions. So you've failed at answering my request by conflating "influence" over the makeup of the board with editorial influence. In fact, the only references I can find to the CPB attempting to influence editorial decisions at NPR were a series of incidents that happened during a Republican administration, and the actions were found to be in violation of the law, and one of the board members resigned as a result.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

The enemy of the people? How'd you get there? What uh... what are you expecting to happen to them, that they will deserve?

angoragoats 4y ago

It’s not about the money being meaningful or not, it’s the fact that the organization was initially labeled as “state-affiliated media” which is blatantly false, going by the common meaning of the term. As I understand it (I don’t use Twitter) the label was later revised to “government-funded media” which is probably correct, but is IMHO a meaningless designation designed to sow distrust. I’m willing to bet every single media organization in the country benefits from government funding somehow. The real issue (and the purpose of the label, at least before it was corrupted by Musk) is whether the government has editorial control over the journalism, which they clearly don’t for NPR. Calling NPR “the enemy of the people” is some Orwellian-level bullshit.

infamouscow 4y ago
It's clear Twitter's definition of state-affiliated media is not the same as your definition, but it's being applied consistently. Are you equally outraged at RT's Russia state-affiliated media label?
- angoragoats 4y ago
  RT is wholly owned by the Russian government. Either you didn't know that and now you're informed, or you did and you were deliberately intending to confuse by conflating a propaganda bureau of the Russian government with an independent network of media outlets that get single-digit percentages of their funding from the state. Either way I'm not going to engage with you further. edit: also, it wasn't "being applied consistently" until they fixed it, as I mentioned in the grandparent post. RT and NPR are fundamentally different, and Twitter even recognized that by changing NPR's label while keeping RT's the same.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    If I understand you correctly, it seems the fundamental difference is what percentage of their finances come from the state. I urge you to reconsider and continue this discussion so we both can learn what exactly is that threshold to be regarded as state-sponsored in your view. Is it 0.0001%, 10%, 51%?