[scott_w]

Your definition conflicts with UNESCO’s definition. By your reasoning, private US media outlets would have qualify as “State Media” because they kowtow to the Trump government - “some other kind of influence”. This is patently nonsense, so your definition is incorrect.

[dragonwriter]

UNESCO using a definition that doesn't account for fascist corporatism and other means vy which nominally private entities can serve as arms of the state doesn't make that definition universally correct, it just makes it UNESCO’s definition.

[scott_w]

Definition:

> State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or significantly influenced by the government.

Which part of this definition is lacking, in your opinion? Which part of the UNESCO report do you think is incorrect? My source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618.locale=en

[throwaway85825]

CBS is owned by an oligarch carrying favor. This isn't state media. Oligarchs act in their own interests and sometimes make alliances.

[scott_w]

You didn’t rebut my point at all. Try again.

[throwaway85825]

This isn't reddit. Try again.

[scott_w]

And yet here you are, desperately trying to soothe your bruised ego by proclaiming you aren’t bothered.

[throwaway85825]

Bizarre response.