6 ms·

This article only has two paragraphs about NPR. Neither of those paragraphs explain that NPR left because Twitter was labeling them as "government-funded media"

• jagtstronaut 3y ago
  Maybe it’s a hot take (I didn’t think so until the violent reaction) but I felt the label was accurate. I like NPR a lot , but certainly the fact that liberal policymakers vote in favor of its funding affects their content. Do we really consider ourselves that much better than other nations that their state media is labeled as such but ours has a high moral calling that is unaffected by dollars?
  • TylerE 3y ago
    NPR receives almost nothing in Federal funding. Like, less than 1% of it's income. The individual stations get a little, but I stress little, it's typcially less than 10% of their budget, and is mostly state/local, not federal. Total spend by the CFB is a whole $1.40/yr per person, and the lion's share of that goes to PBS, not NPR.
    • WillPostForFood 3y ago
      They don't receive it directly, but the Federal government gives it to local PBS stations, which then pay NPR for the content rebroadcast rights. Because the money is now passing through multiple pockets, you can say the federal money isn't directly going to NPR, but local PBS fees amount to about 1/3rd of NPR's revenue. If the 1% number NPR touts was real, they should advocate for the disbandment of CPB so their independence would be undisputed, but they live on that money so they don't.
      • dragontamer 3y ago
        Last time I checked, EVs got $7500 from the Federal Government for every car, which is more than 1% of a typical car price. Does that make Tesla a government funded company? Should Tesla be given state-sponsored flags on Twitter?
        • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
          Media organizations that receive non-trivial government funding have to be wary of criticizing the politicians who secure them that funding and then readers want to be aware of that potential bias, because media companies are otherwise expected to critically investigate politicians. There is no such expectation for car companies. The reason car companies don't get the "state sponsored media" flag isn't that they're not state sponsored, it's that they're not media organizations.
        • pauldenton 3y ago
          Musk spoke at the Wall Street Journal's CEO Summit Monday and suggested scrapping the Biden infrastructure package. Musk said that Tesla didn't need the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, which provides a tax credit of up to that amount to individuals purchasing plug-in electric vehicles, to drive demand for its vehicles. He also called federal support for charging infrastructure unnecessary. "Do we need support for gas stations? We don't," Musk said. "There's no need for support for a charging network. I would delete it. Delete."
          • greedo 3y ago
            Sure, now that he's entrenched after sucking on the government teat, shut that stuff down so competitors can't benefit.
        • smrtinsert 3y ago
          Finally, I can get that government motors commie car!
        • WillPostForFood 3y ago
          Do you think Tesla falls under "government-funded media"? Last I checked they made cars. But if they start a newspaper, and the federal govt financed it, I'd support the label.
    • SmartJerry 3y ago
      I think Musk got it right when he posted on X that NPR's own 'about' page said "federal funding is essential"
      • manonthewall 3y ago
        He'd be wrong. If all federal funds were cut off most would lose 5-10% of their funding income. It would suck for them, but they'd still be fine. Elon had it entirely wrong and implied they were just a state run propaganda source.
  • skyyler 3y ago
    NPR is not US state media. The US does have a state media news org. It's called Voice of America. They have a youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSNOxehfALut52NbkfRBaA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSNOxehfALut52NbkfRBaA
    • avar 3y ago
      Also Stars and Stripes: https://www.stripes.com https://www.stripes.com
    • jagtstronaut 3y ago
      If I recall the label was “state funded media” not state media
  • handelaar 3y ago
    Instead of feeling like the label was accurate (it is not), why not instead do a quick search and actually find out how much of NPR's income comes from the government? (Spoiler: government advertising pays significantly more of the budget of a great many commercial and "independent" radio stations)
    • jagtstronaut 3y ago
      So your argument is that it’s okay not to label it as state funded (which it most certainly is) because other media companies are? And you feel the best course of action is to continue hiding all that?
  • afinlayson 3y ago
    By labeling it that - you are devaluing the term for dictatorships that use state run media to manipulate the state. How is NPR being manipulated by Biden? Has he been talking to their staff like the previous administration spoke to a conservative media star? Words need to matter. You could call this Federally funded media - but he didn't .. And like others have said funny he didn't label Tesla or Space X state sponsored car company. They are (and should be imo) This was just playing politics.
    • mardifoufs 3y ago
      That's not what it means. Even the BBC is state funded media. That you think your media shouldn't be labelled by what it objectively is, is just peak American exceptionalism. And yeah sure, they weren't directly funded but that's semantics. The stations, which constitute NPR are state funded. It's such a weird position to deny something like this, it just exposes your biases (aka, the label was never meant to be factual but mostly to be a smear)
  • smrtinsert 3y ago
    Spend some time there and you'll hopefully get a broader view of its content. It's frequently critical of both parties, and leaves plenty fuming on both sides. Outside of nonsense politics, they actually educate their listeners instead of focusing on opinion blather.
    • mardifoufs 3y ago
      Which has absolutely nothing to do with it being state funded or not. It can be funded by the government and still fairly unbiaised. Why hide it? It's fine to be state funded, as long as the public is aware
      • jagtstronaut 3y ago
        Agreed with both of you actually. I enjoy NPR and I certainly agree that it allows for both sides at times. However, it is a fact it is state funded (it is in the name) and I think it objectively leans one way (which you can verify by looking it up on one of those companies that evaluates media bias) and it just so happens that the way it leans is where the votes for its funding comes from?
  • manonthewall 3y ago
    NPR is not owned or controlled by the US government. At least read the wiki article or something if you think that.
• CharlesW 3y ago
  > NPR doesn't like this label since it doesn't take how much government funding they receive into account… No. As the article you linked to notes, the problem is that Musk's label was designed to suggest that NPR is state-controlled media rather than the independent non-profit that they are. And of course, Musk doesn't apply the label to his companies, which have received billions in government funding and support. It didn't help that Musk encouraged his Muskovites to attack NPR while this played out. All of this is a distraction from the point of the story, which is that being on X is virtually worthless for brands.
  • adamrezich 3y ago
    > And of course, Musk doesn't apply the label to his companies, which have received billions in government funding and support. which of his government-funded companies are media companies such that a "State-Sponsored Media" label would be warranted?
    • PhasmaFelis 3y ago
      Missing the point. If Musk's companies are no more "state-sponsored media" than NPR is, than it's hypocritical to label them differently than NPR.
    • phatfish 3y ago
      Does social media count? Apparently it's now where everyone gets their news. Which reminds me, didn't Musk hit up the Saudis or some other middle eastern sovereign wealth fund when he was forced to actually buy Twitter?
  • mike_hock 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • EA-3167 3y ago
      > The reaction proved the label right. So wait, if someone calls you a Nazi and you refuse to engage with them, does that also prove their claim right? I'm pretty sure NPR leaving didn't prove anything, other than the fact that NPR made the rather sane decision to skip pre-boarding on the Titanic.
• simonw 3y ago
  Key note from that story: > In explaining its decision, NPR cited Twitter's decision to first label the network "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries. The reason NPR didn't like that label is that it was applied to them in a way that directly compared them to those propaganda outlets. Also from that story: > Twitter's own guidelines previously said, "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy." It looks like Twitter re-instated that policy - that text now appears on this page: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affiliated-china https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia...
• gnicholas 3y ago
  > This article only has two paragraphs about NPR. Wow, I thought I had clicked through to the wrong article because there are so many paragraphs that are seemingly unrelated to the headline. Also, Cory seems to have fudged the facts a bit, since NPR's move didn't have "no effect" as he claimed. It had a "negligible" impact, according to NiemanReports. [1] Is this nitpicking? Yes. But when you choose a headline that misrepresents the facts (even those you present in your article, many paragraphs down), then it's appropriate. NiemanReports' article also has some enlightening data regarding the magnitude of the impact. > A memo circulated to NPR staff says traffic has dropped by only a single percentage point as a result of leaving Twitter, now officially renamed X, though traffic from the platform was small already and accounted for just under two percent of traffic before the posting stopped So if less than 2% of the total traffic came from Twitter previously, and the total traffic has since dropped by 1%, that means that by removing their account they lost more than half of their Twitter-sourced traffic. For a publisher like NPR, which had minimal Twitter-sourced traffic in the first place, that isn't too big a deal. But it means that other publishers shouldn't hastily delete their Twitter accounts, thinking that their traffic won't drop materially. If NPR's experience is representative, a publisher should expect to lose just over half of their Twitter-sourced traffic if they delete their account. 1: https://niemanreports.org/articles/npr-twitter-musk/ https://niemanreports.org/articles/npr-twitter-musk/