By this same logic, all television networks are "state-affiliated media", because they all depend on local stations that hold federally-granted broadcast licenses. So add Fox Broadcasting, NBC, CBS, etc., etc. to your list.
Also with the same logic Tesla is "state-affiliated". Federal subsidies on sales have been a critical part of their business model.
I think people are arguing that is label makes sense are really losing the thread of the point of the label. Is it possible for the Federal government to exert pressure on the organization? Honestly, that's true of any person or organization that has any financial dealings that touch the US. It's really hard to argue in good faith that NPR is a mouth piece of the state like RT or Xinhua.
The logic being applied here is the baseline of American conservative logic that all mainstream media, excepting Fox News of course, is controlled by an organized leftist cabal that takes their orders directly from the Democratic Party. They mistrust NPR and PBS in particular (and have for decades,) considering them nothing but organs for Marxist propaganda.
As with the "Twitter Files" this is just an attempt to normalize right-wing conspiracy theory under the facade of neutrality.
Agreed. Licensing is much more powerful leverage, because there's no alternative. At least PBS stations can appeal to private sources for funding. Licensing power is exclusive to the government.
But in practice (in the USA) broadcast licenses are just a way to manage spectrum and don't get revoked for political reasons. Funding can go up or down depending in order to condition behavior.
I think people are arguing that is label makes sense are really losing the thread of the point of the label. Is it possible for the Federal government to exert pressure on the organization? Honestly, that's true of any person or organization that has any financial dealings that touch the US. It's really hard to argue in good faith that NPR is a mouth piece of the state like RT or Xinhua.