[negidius]

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.