4 ms·

I don't think it was working fine. The previous system treated state media from different countries very differently, even when they were identical according to

I don't think it was working fine. The previous system treated state media from different countries very differently, even when they were identical according to any objective criteria. Ideally, they would have made a rule saying that if more than N% of funding came from government sources and/or government officials have the power to appoint or remove board members or employees, it's labeled as state-affiliated media.

rektide 3y ago
It feels like fishing for problems. For a system that was accurate & working well. The test isn't about funding. That's poor spirited. The test is about journalistic independence. NPR and the Guardian ought be hallmark leaders by any metric one could make worth a salt.
- negidius 3y ago
  It was not accurate and did not work well at all. It was completely arbitrary. I think the ability to withhold funding can be a powerful tool for governments to influence the journalism they fund. I think that's why governments fund journalism. It's at least a risk factor, and it makes the organization state-affiliated by definition. I don't think it's unreasonable to worry about NPR thinking about how their editorial decisions will affect the government's continued willingness to give them money. I'm not saying that NPR is actually thinking about that, but it's a risk that people should keep in mind when they consume the content. Leaving funding aside, my comment was mainly referring to state media such as CBC and BBC. I fail to see why they should not get the same label as their non-western equivalents. The BBC is not even really pretending to be independent anymore, and while I don't know anything about CBC's journalism, the fact that their board is appointed (and can be removed) by the Canadian government means that they are not independent of the Canadian government. I don't know what you refer to regarding the Guardian. As far as I know, no one labeled them state media.

rektide 3y ago

It feels like fishing for problems. For a system that was accurate & working well. The test isn't about funding. That's poor spirited. The test is about journalistic independence. NPR and the Guardian ought be hallmark leaders by any metric one could make worth a salt.

negidius 3y ago
It was not accurate and did not work well at all. It was completely arbitrary. I think the ability to withhold funding can be a powerful tool for governments to influence the journalism they fund. I think that's why governments fund journalism. It's at least a risk factor, and it makes the organization state-affiliated by definition. I don't think it's unreasonable to worry about NPR thinking about how their editorial decisions will affect the government's continued willingness to give them money. I'm not saying that NPR is actually thinking about that, but it's a risk that people should keep in mind when they consume the content. Leaving funding aside, my comment was mainly referring to state media such as CBC and BBC. I fail to see why they should not get the same label as their non-western equivalents. The BBC is not even really pretending to be independent anymore, and while I don't know anything about CBC's journalism, the fact that their board is appointed (and can be removed) by the Canadian government means that they are not independent of the Canadian government. I don't know what you refer to regarding the Guardian. As far as I know, no one labeled them state media.