4 ms·

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

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%?
    - angoragoats 4y ago
      I prefer not to engage at all with folks who call NPR “the enemy of the people.” I urge you to get your head out of your ass.
      - infamouscow 4y ago
        I must have touched the nerve of a propagandist :) The inescapable fact of the matter is the onus is on NPR to absolve themselves of their conflict of interest. Their failure to do so is evidence in and of itself of their corruption. There's no way to snake and weasel out of this. I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives. If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas I have to conclude: NPR is the enemy of the people and they deserve everything that happens to them.
        angoragoats 4y ago
        > The inescapable fact of the matter is the onus is on NPR to absolve themselves of their conflict of interest No. Goodbye.

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%?
  - angoragoats 4y ago
    I prefer not to engage at all with folks who call NPR “the enemy of the people.” I urge you to get your head out of your ass.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      I must have touched the nerve of a propagandist :) The inescapable fact of the matter is the onus is on NPR to absolve themselves of their conflict of interest. Their failure to do so is evidence in and of itself of their corruption. There's no way to snake and weasel out of this. I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives. If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas I have to conclude: NPR is the enemy of the people and they deserve everything that happens to them.
      - angoragoats 4y ago
        > The inescapable fact of the matter is the onus is on NPR to absolve themselves of their conflict of interest No. Goodbye.