[yossarian1408]

Twitter, SpaceX and Tesla are not newspapers/publishers. The reason for labelling news organisations' government affiliations is for the viewer/reader to understand that there may or may not be bias, and where the funding is coming from.

If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding. Additionally, if there's no influence/bias, then why does it matter that their funding is disclosed to the reader?

[kyralis]

Because the label has a connotation that is not accurate.

Connotation is just as important as denotation when evaluating meaning and accuracy of statements. Engineers love to pretend otherwise - that's probably part of why we're engineers - but that doesn't make them right.

[raxxorraxor]

A connotation is subjective and should not matter. Public funding however is. In my country there are more or less trustworthy government funded news stations that are also flagged. At least on youtube.

But I believe the label is more important than what some people fear other people would maybe perceive.

[dpkonofa]

It would simply be a connotation if Twitter's own documentation on what that tag means didn't explicitly state that the tag means that the source's editorial process may be influenced by the government organizations funding them. That's not the case for any of the current organizations that have gotten that tag.

[Georgelemental]

The connotation is a product of how the label was inconsistently applied in the past. Consistent application of the label will solve this problem pretty soon, without requiring Twitter to make judgment calls that should be beyond its purview

[d23]

NPR is not nor has it ever been state-affiliated media in any reasonable sense of the word. Is it a full stop, bald-face lie.

[just-ok]

Has NPR evolved since its inception? Sure. But "nor has it ever been" is... misleading at best:

> Funding for NPR comes from [...other sources...] and annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Hmm, let's look into said Corporation:

> On February 26, 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR)

> The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.

> The CPB is governed by a nine-member board of directors selected by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate

I mean... If this wasn't "state-affiliated media" at its inception, I'm not entirely sure what is.

[sigmar]

Not sure if you realize that "State-affiliated" has a very different meaning than "received government funds"

[just-ok]

Of course, but NPR's origins are from a government-controlled organization.

[jprd]

Fair enough, but without doing linguistic gymnastics, "State-affiliated" should also be seen by any reasonably educated adult to indicate "State-edited". "State-funded" is an appropriate tag! I'd recommend this, actually.

NPR show Frontline is a great place to start this education.

Attempting to place NPR and that kind of sentiment in the same conversation as anything other than a great example of how Gov't funds can be provided without such _control_ is disingenuous at best.

NPR != RT

Musk is in way over his head.

[revelio]

Virtually no media companies admit to being state edited, even if they are literally a department of the government. Heck it's common even for government agencies to claim they are independent of "the government" despite being a part of it. So if that were the bar, there'd be no such labelling at all.

[lowkey]

NPR is listed as government-funded media, not state-affiliated media [0]

A large part of their funding comes from congress -> corporation for public broadcasting -> local NPR affiliates -> NPR.

It is indirect funding, yes, but they are very much funded by the US government.

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/NPR

[cycomanic]

How is 1% a large part?

Quoting https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...

> On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.

[lowkey]

They are playing fast and loose with their accounting by ignoring the large contribution that comes from local affiliate stations, local affiliate stations that receive a large part of their funding from the corporation for public broadcasting, a government sponsored entity.

In reality government funding accounts for much more than 1% of NPR's budget.

[naijaboiler]

it seems its not. they say 30% of NPRs funding come from local affiliates paying for NPR programming. And on average those local NPRs get 8% of their funding from government. Do the math, that means 2.4% + 1% of NPR comes directly government

[0xBDB]

"And on average those local NPRs get 8% of their funding from government."

NPR itself [1] says that figure is 13 percent, counting state governments. In either case, I am comfortable that NPR is editorially independent but also comfortable saying that without government money, it's a podcast network.

The power of the purse is the power to pull strings even if that power is not currently being used, and even if the marionette would scream really loudly if the strings were pulled. I don't think "state-affiliated" was a fair label. "Government-funded" was, and NPR is damaging its credibility more than Twitter could by pitching a fit over it.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/12/1169269161/npr-leaves-twitter...

[54D2AFD131F3]

It was changed to that. Originally the label was as given in the headline: "state-affiliated media".

[OrlandoHakim]

but as v0idzer0 pointed out in a reply to your similar comment above

"it was changed before this piece and before NPR decided to leave. Twitter acknowledged that label was incorrect and changed it. Then NPR had a temper tantrum and left and this piece implied they left over that label. It’s misleading at best"

[orblivion]

I agree and wasn't fond of the "state-affiliated" label but they switched to "government funded" which I agree with.

[soerxpso]

How is receiving funding from someone not a form of affiliation with them?

[93po]

affiliated:

"closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position"

"an organization that is officially connected with or controlled by another, usually larger, organization"

dependent: "relying on another for support" (also uses of the words "need" and "requires")

I would agree with parent comment - NPR is not directly, closely affiliated with the state. And isn't in a subordinate position with the state. It has about 12% of its funding from tax dollars, but I think it'd likely exists without that.

I also agree with parent comment they are state funded, however, and anyone who had 12% of their income from a given source for free and no work would be biased and influenced to be friendly towards them. To suggest that the people who work at and run NPR are free from bias and influence is demonstrably not true, and so it also follows we can't assume they would approach their funding without bias.

[codeddesign]

Based on what criteria? NPR is specifically in the congressional budget by law..yes, we have a law to keep them funded by the US govt.

Is the criteria money? coercion? backdoor-deals? bias?

As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money.

[detaro]

Is it? "State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution."

Control/Coercion seem more important, especially since Twitter has a separate category for media with government funding. (cf https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia... for both)

[lowkey]

Correction: Twitter lists NPR as government-funded media, not state affiliated media [0]

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/NPR

[54D2AFD131F3]

It was changed to that. Originally the label was as given in the headline: "state-affiliated media".

[v0idzer0]

Yeah but it was changed before this piece and before NPR decided to leave. Twitter acknowledged that label was incorrect and changed it. Then NPR had a temper tantrum and left and this piece implied they left over that label. It’s misleading at best

[codeddesign]

I was asking your criteria.

Twitter: “Financial Resource” Considering we do have a law around funding NPR and the company would be impacted of that funding went away, personally I see it as appropriate.

However, I also see it appropriate that Fox News and Washington Post get the same tag. (party political pressures)

[detaro]

I was responding to the "As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money." part. Fox and WP as state-affiliated seems weird to me: being close to a party line is not necessarily the same as state-affiliation. (Given we're talking a democracy and not a one-party state - I don't think you could make that distinction in e.g. China due to how interconnected it is there)

[codeddesign]

Parties absolutely have access to these outlets. We all have to be blind to think that if Biden request WP to write something positive, they wouldn’t? Same with Fox and Trump. Does the govt use influence to persuade news outlets? Of course they do. Any major news outlet that says they are 100% independent and doesn’t have some percentage of outside influence is outright lying.

Does the Whitehouse (in general) use press access passes as bartering chip, yes of course!

With that said, “state-affiliated” depends on criteria. Whether it’s agreed upon or not, Twitter set their criteria. Other outlets set their criteria as well…on news, politics, health, and illicit.

[skrowl]

NPR was, quite-literally created by an act of the United States congress.

It receives DIRECT funding from the United States government.

Twitter was generous in changing the label from "State-affiliated" media (given that it was literally created by the US Government) to "Government-funded media".

There is no possible argument against the "Government-funded media" label that makes sense. They're government funded. NPR's parent company, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is also government funded. Neither of these funding points are debatable (aka Full stop).

[lamontcg]

Corporations and institutions/foundations make up more than half of NPR's funding. And that exceeds the pledge drive funding, which collectively vastly exceeds the government funds they receive.

When NPR runs their "ADM Supermarket to the World" spots, that is telling you who is really funding them and who to worry about exerting editorial control.

[MichaelZuo]

Any entity created by an Act of Congress is by definition affiliated with the federal government.

[yufeng66]

Hudson's bay company is incorporated by English Royal charter in 1670. By definition it is a department store affiliated with the English king :)

[MichaelZuo]

With the Crown yes, not a particular individual.

In fact there are still some families in Canada with noble titles, hearldry, etc., who are indeed affiliated with the Crown.

[lostlogin]

When Chinese and Russian state propaganda channels are getting the same label for a different situation, it’s a bit off.

Your (and Elons) argument has shades of the famous ‘with us or against us’ line. Details matter.

[rbanffy]

Twitter and its curation and targeting mechanisms make it very much a publisher.

[Diesel555]

They are not categorized as a publisher. They receive legal protections as such. This will quickly evolve into a section 230 debate.

I do agree social media companies should be categorized as a publisher - or content providers, but they are not. I think changing section 230 would solve a lot of problems by removing very specific legal protections, which news companies do not receive, and help prevent clear issues such as knowingly promoting false information.

There are those that disagree with me. Problems exist with any solution such as who should judge what should not be allowed and would the counter devolve into an organization that could control information dissemination? A valid point. I think the answer is already out there - a very low standard (or to say another way the high burden of proof required) current news organizations are held to by law, which most seem not to debate is too restrictive, or some line between nothing and that.

There is a lot of academic discourse on this topic and I recommend researching 230 more. It’s a fascinating policy debate with pros and cons on both sides. It was written in 1996, the year the palm pilot and the Pentium 166MHz processor was introduced.

[rbanffy]

> knowingly promoting false information.

This in itself should be enough to remove media organisation protections.

[jmye]

> If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding.

Ah, yes, the old "if I misrepresent the issue and assign a negative emotion to it, other people will see it as bad" trope. That's fun.

Do you have any evidence they find the contributions "embarrassing" as opposed to finding the label an intentionally-misleading dog whistle? Or is that not something that occurred to you?

[kcplate]

I don’t think this really answers the greater point that the commenter made though. Without the public funding, they wouldn’t have the label—-whether they deem it embarrassing or opposed to its perceived meaning.

[bagels]

Twitter is a publisher. Just like newspapers publish AP stories, Twitter publishes the latest memes from users.

[worthless-trash]

As someone not in US newspaper terms, I thought AP was associated publisher (ie another publisher who gives them rights to edit the story)

This seems super far from what twitter is. Please explicitly explain how an AP story is in regards to twitter.

[dragonwriter]

> Twitter, SpaceX and Tesla are not newspapers/publishers.

Twitter is a publisher, though (because of Section 230) they are not liable as a publisher for most of what they publish under US law.

[drtz]

Elon publishes commentary and opinions about policy and society to his Twitter account regularly. He probably has a much broader reach than NPR. To say he shouldn't be held to the same standards because he's not a "publisher" is laughable.

Making NPR display its funding sources for all to see is a good thing (although "state-affiliated" was not the right label). Not making other high profile accounts do the same is pure hypocrisy.

[ramses0]

"Sea Lion" comment/question. It's a distraction.

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

[nailer]

> > Why does it matter that their funding is disclosed to the reader?

> It's a distraction.

Categorizing an argument doesn't provide justification for that categorization.

[guelo]

The label was "State Affiliated media" not "publicly funded".

[khochesh_kushat]

The label doesn't say anything about publishing or printing a newspaper, it says media. Social media is surely media?

[scarface74]

And Fox News had a direct line to the White House and was influenced heavily by it. Was it not just as biased?

[d23]

As biased as Fox News is, it would be completely ridiculous to call it state-affiliated media.

[scarface74]

How much more “state affiliated” can you get than when Trump was in office he spent most of his day watching FoxNews and called it when he didn’t like the coverage and they acquiesced?

This is not some conspiracy theory. It was very much out in the open.

Even more recently, the house speaker gave Fox preferred access to the Jan 6th video.

[d23]

I don’t even doubt you, I just don’t think it’s the same thing as consistently-affiliated state media. If anything it’s party biased, but it’s not because they’re afraid the party will jail them, kill them, or forcibly take over their business.

[vuln]

> This is not some conspiracy theory. It was very much out in the open.

Do you have any evidence of this?

[mrastro]

Tons. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/29/h... among others. He literally live tweeted about the something related to FOX News segment as it was happening.

[hgsgm]

That's in reverse. Trump was Fox sponsored. Fox wasn't Trump sponsored. Fox doesn't need a "Fox affiliated media" label.

Maybe it needs a "NewsCorp/Murdoch affiliated" label.

[hacktavist24]

This is true, but Elon Musk is, let's say, a producer of content that drives engagement on the platform that is Twitter. I'd say he gets enough tax breaks and such to qualify for a state shill label. That's not even considering his many years' long business affiliation with the Saudis, even before he decided to piss away 44 billion dollars to buy one of the world's largest megaphones.

[sonotathrowaway]

Irrelevant and misleading. By Twitter’s own guidelines it’s not a state owned publisher.

[rakoo]

Twitter chooses what to push in front or not, it absolutely is a publisher

[fundad]

SpaceX and Tesla are not newspapers/publishers.

Twitter is a media company, a publisher with an editorial voice that we have to assume is independent from the Saudi government or any government funding the owner's other businesses.

[nailer]

I'd be fairly happy for Twitter to declare their own potential conflicts of interest.

That doesn't mean Twitter shouldn't correctly label state funded media.

[fundad]

He just wants NPR defunded

[askin4it]

metoo

[fundad]

Twitter 2.0 is all just an anti-tax bro doing anti-tax stuff for the GOP.

[ideamotor]

Funny