NPR Was Twitter’s Example Of What Should NOT Be Labeled ‘State-Affiliated Media.’ Then Musk Added The Label And Retconned The Policy
from the no-trust,-less-safety dept
For years I’ve joked that everyone who hasn’t thought about trust & safety thinks that it’s easy: just do what I would do. The assumption is that there’s a “right” set of ways to handle these questions, when the reality is that there’s a very broad set of unclear areas, where there are reasonable arguments for a wide variety of possible ways to handle things. This is why good trust & safety teams focus on trying to craft clear policies that can be followed by a large distributed team, while realizing that there will be many difficult calls that don’t fit neatly. In those cases, the teams have to make a tough call, or consider whether or not the policies themselves need to be adjusted.
It’s not an easy job at all. And while it’s easy to criticize the mistakes that are made, as long as there’s a clear process based on articulated policies, I think you can criticize decisions you disagree with without assuming ill-intent. Unfortunately, many people immediately leap to the idea of ill-intent.
Indeed, Elon Musk made it clear from early on that a key reason for buying Twitter was that he did not approve of the way that Twitter handled trust & safety, falsely insisting that it was driven by a “woke” agenda when the reality, as has been shown time and time again, is that they were just trying to stop people from being assholes on the platform. Throughout the Twitter Files, we’ve seen over and over that Twitter’s trust & safety team struggled with difficult calls (and sometimes made mistakes), but focused on principled positions rather than being driven by their personal beliefs or politics.
However, since Elon came to town, he’s changed the trust & safety process to have one guiding principle: things Elon doesn’t like get punished. Things he doesn’t care about, don’t. The entirety of the working policy at Twitter right now seems to be soothing Elon’s massive ego.
What’s funny (depending on your sense of humor, I guess) is that Elon has become everything he claimed he needed to protect Twitter from. He hated the “biased” moderation efforts, which he insisted (falsely) were driven by personal beliefs and politics. Yet, now that he’s in charge, trust & safety has become more arbitrary and much more focused on Elon’s own personal concerns while ignoring the safety concerns of others.
The latest example of this is that on Tuesday, Twitter started labeling NPR as “state-affiliated media.”

This is the label that Twitter has traditionally placed on pure state-controlled propaganda mills, not traditional independent public media organizations that receive a small fraction of their funding from the government. Indeed, this label has important national security purposes, using more speech (not suppression) to alert users to media organizations that are not just less trustworthy, but that may be pushing a propagandistic (potentially blatantly false) line to influence the public. This label doesn’t make any sense at all for an operation like NPR.
Indeed, Twitter’s policies regarding the “state-affiliated media” label explicitly say that it’s not for organizations like NPR:

Oh wait. That’s how it read on Wednesday for a few hours after NPR got the label. Then, magically, the NPR part disappeared from that page:

Huh. Look at that: retconning the policy change to delete NPR as literally one of the examples of who not to designate as state-affiliated media.
And, of course, NPR shouldn’t be hit with that label. The purpose of the label is to highlight news organizations that are simply mouthpieces for the government regimes, spewing pure propaganda. Even if you disagree with NPR’s editorial choices (and I frequently do), it’s not state-affiliated media. Labeling it as such undermines trust in Twitter and it’s labeling system. It actually serves to increase the trust in pure propaganda outfits like Sputnik that are designed to sow discord.
NPR is wholly editorially independent from the government and only receives any government funding indirectly, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting giving grants to member stations, who then may use some of that money to pay program fees and dues to NPR itself. On the whole, federal funding makes up a tiny percentage of any funding that goes to NPR, and does not come directly from the government. And, clearly, NPR is totally editorially independent.
But of course, for whatever reason, Musk wants to put NPR in its place, and he abuses his position as owner of Twitter to arbitrarily ignore the site’s own rules so that he can do one of his stupid jokes, smugly insisting that NPR is no different than, say, Chinese state-affiliated media.
You know, like China Cyberspace, the magazine run by the chief internet censorship agency in China, which Musk penned a column for. Because Musk seems to have no problem with actual state-affiliated media that works in his personal interests, but can’t seem to stand independent media that might occasionally call out his bullshit.
Again, Musk is free to do this (and we’re free to criticize him for it), but it’s important to call out the hypocrisy here. While Musk insisted that he was coming in to take over Twitter to be better about trust & safety efforts, and to move away from what he falsely believed was a system driven by personal views and whims, he’s now instituted policy after policy, and decision after decision, that are driven entirely by his own personal whims and what he thinks will rile up his base of sycophantic yes-men.
I’m quite sure that Elon finds the consternation from people over this absolutely hilarious. That it undermines trust & safety on his own platform is not at all important compared to the fact that the dumbest of his fan base are absolutely loving this chance to think they’ve put NPR in its place. It’s arbitrary, it’s stupid, it’s petty, it’s vindictive. And it’s everything that’s wrong with Twitter 2.0 in one simple stupid snapshot.
Filed Under: content moderation, elon musk, state-affiliated media, trust & safety
Companies: npr, twitter


Comments on “NPR Was Twitter’s Example Of What Should NOT Be Labeled ‘State-Affiliated Media.’ Then Musk Added The Label And Retconned The Policy”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike and fellow travelers here in the TD commentariat:
If a media organization receiving grants from a state doesn’t constitute “affiliation” with that state, what does it constitute, then?
Re:
By that logic, any company that take government grants is then a government company. Like Tesla when it got Federal loans or when it got local incentives from several US states.
The obvious answer to your question is to look at what China & Russia does and compare it to America. NPR gets government grants but the US government doesn’t tell them what to print and put out. NPR still has editorial discretion. Chinese/Russian Media prints what the government says when the government says.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Please choose one:
A) Capitalism is responsible for all the nice things we have.
B) What we have isn’t capitalism.
Re: Re: Re:
The US—along with pretty much every country nowadays—is a mix of capitalism and socialism. That said, the US is primarily capitalist, nothing DJ said is socialistic, and nothing DJ said suggests that he believes that capitalism is responsible for all the nice things we have.
As such, this is both incorrect and irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:2
The us has a caste system where the ultra rich enjoy socialism while everyone else suffers under capitalism.
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
This is not sustainable.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s not a caste system, that’s plutocracy.
Re: Re: Re:4
Or a kleptocracy.
Re:
You have to ask yourself two questions in this situation:
If the answer to both questions is “no” (as it is with NPR), the organization isn’t a state-controlled media outlet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I would call 25% a “significant” amount. They go to great pains to hide the total % (Which is suspicious on it’s own) but it’s not 1% they claim
Re: Re: Re:
What’s your source for that?
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t necessarily agree that it is, but even if it would be, where are you getting this 25% figure?
What do you mean? What are they doing to hide it?
How do you know?
Re:
Well, I guess you would call it government supporting the arts while maintaining editorial independence? Not hard, not a trick.
Re:
Going by Twitter 2.0’s updated definition (emphasis mine):
If NPR receives too little money from the government for the gov to exercise “control over editorial content” then NPR isn’t state-affiliated media according to the definition that Elon’s Twitter is using as of April 5, 2023.
Re: Re:
Previous commenter here. Small hole in the way I articulated things: I made an unspoken assumption that no US government applies sufficient political pressure or controls production/distribution to influence the content of NPR’s publications (i.e. editorial content).
Re:
It’s very funny how you ask a question… the answer to which is provided by twitter (even AFTER the retcon), and quoted here by Mike, if… you are unable to find it, I am very much afraid me repeating it would not help you at all.
Re: Re:
Not the original commenter, but it’s possible that, like me, the original commenter didn’t pay enough attention to the images to realize that Mike was using Elon’s Twitter’s definition of state-affiliated media instead of Mike’s personal definition.
That, or the commenter was asking for Mike’s and us commenters’ personal definitions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Correct. Unlike many of the haters here who aggressively flag-to-suppress comments that express ideas they disagree with, I’m very interested in dialogue and discussion, and exposure to a wide variety of perspectives (which is why Musk’s Twitter is so nice – he’s letting a thousand flowers of various ideologies bloom, and not censoring common sense perspectives, like the fact that men can never be women, for example).
Thank you for taking the time to reply in good faith to my comment.
Re: Re: Re:2
fuck off, Hyman
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Whose hymen?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Nope. Not me. But I’ll take the sentiment anyway in the spirit with which it was intended.
Re: Re: Re:2
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:2
…said nobody who understands what that phrase actually means.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s not that he doesn’t understand—it’s that he doesn’t care if harmful/genocidal ideologies are allowed to bloom so long as they’re targeting the people upon which he wants harm to befall.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
What’s less hostile to science than acknowledging the fundamentals of evolutionary biology, and encouraging discussion on that topic?
Twitter under Musk is less hostile to science than ever before.
Re: Re: Re:4
Said someone who has no clue about evolutionary biology.
Re: Re: Re:5
Evolutionary biology says: Sex and gender are both bimodal (not binary), not the same thing, and not necessarily related to one another.
Re: Re: Re:3 A garden of poisonous flowers
I mean it’s technically true I suppose, it just leaves out that those ‘ideologies’ are by and large ‘Person/Group X are subhuman and don’t deserve the same rights or treatment as real people’.
Re: Re: Re:4
Every flower is a platform, not a poster, and the field is the internet.
Musk has turned the flower of twitter into a Titan Arum.
Re: Re: Re:3
In CCP speak, that means “expose the enemy and arrest the lot”.
…Sorry, I am always reminded of how Mao used that bullshit to eradicate those who didn’t align with his ideology.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hyman.
Per your admission, you were even banned from those fine conservative sites for “disagreeing on certain things”.
And while most (cpnservative* sites are more ban-happy than Mike, your continued behavior here is more telling of at least WHY yoou are kicked off from those fine conservative sites.
If you truly were here to argue in good faith, you’d at least stop repeating your Nazi screeds.
Re: Re: Re:3
Just letting you know that it isn’t me to whom you’re replying.
The reason I get kicked off sites is because I like to argue against false claims that those sites treat as unassailable truths. They’re different on conservative sites than on liberal ones, but the reaction to having them challenged is pretty much the same everywhere.
Why do you think I’m not arguing in good faith? I say what I believe. You may disagree, and you may even think that my beliefs are heinous and “Nazi” (remember when Godwin’s law was, like 1984, a warning rather than a manual?), but I don’t think I’ve given a reason to have you suppose that they’re not real.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ve said this multiple times, but no one disputes this except genderfluid people. Transgender people and their allies don’t claim that men can become women (at least not with current technology). The dispute is about which of the two transmen and transwomen are, respectively.
Also, “common sense” is a poor way to determine truth.
Re:
Clearly the concept of college scholarships is lost on you.
Re:
who gives a shit? elmo only did this in response to his serial plagarist dipshit friend.
Re: Re:
Which one?
Re: Re: Re:
All of them.
Re: Re:
I give a shit, since the remaining contradiction between Elon’s Twitter’s definition of state-affiliated media and Elon’s decision to incorrectly apply the label to NPR is evidence that Elon is being hypocritical.
That said, I wonder whether Elon will change Twitter’s definition of state-affiliated media to ensure that NPR falls under it.
Re:
RTFA
Re:
It constitutes “public media”. Yes, outlets like NPR, PBS, the BBC and Canada’s CBC receive some government funding, but most of the funding comes from the general public and other sources (particularly commercial interests).
Most of PBS and NPR’s funding comes from private donors (The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, the Ford Foundation, etc.), corporations and viewers/listeners of their member stations. The BBC’s funding comes mainly from public license fees for its broadcast and streaming services, and revenue generated from commercial subsidiaries like BBC Studios. CBC’s revenue comes mostly from television and digital advertising, subscriber fees from pay TV providers, and other financing and income streams (real estate asset rentals, content sales, contributions from the Canada Media Fund, etc.).
Public broadcasters tend not to be subject to the type of government interference in their editorial content like the state media outlets in autocratic countries we think of are.
Does Musk define censorship as removing right wing voices, and moderation as removing left leaning voices? Does he also define viewpoint neutral as enabling bigots, and removing those who oppose bigotry?
Re:
No, you’re thinking of centrist media outlets.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Finest Propaganda Money Can Buy
When you control the money, you control the editorial process. NPR has consistently come out in favor of pro-government political positions, especially those that pay their salaries. They would be out of business within weeks if they were independently financed. NPR clearly demonstrates the link between government financing and government control.
Re:
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I’m not Koby, but I’ll answer:
Yes.
If you say you’re open to everyone, then you allow everyone to speak, regardless of viewpoint.
If you want to silence people you don’t want to hear on your site, make it a subscription site, and only allow people to subscribe that you want to listen to.
Don’t be a publisher (deciding what does and doesn’t get posted on your site) then turn around and claim you’re only a platform and shield yourself behind §230 protections.
Re: Re: Re:
I thought private business was afforded leeway in who they do business with. I have heard references to a thing called a free market, perhaps that is not so free after all.
Many brick ‘n mortar places have policy in place regarding shirts and shoes requirement, perhaps this is partially driven by liability insurance rates .. idk.
If I ran a business, it would not be in a place that thinks like you do.
Re: Re: Re:2
Modern American conservatives love to let businesses operate however they wish—up until they operate in a way that those conservatives don’t like.
Re: Re: Re:3
‘No no no! We should be able to discriminate and/or kick people out for being gay/trans/non-christian, you aren’t allowed to discriminate and/or kick us out for harassment and/or bigotry! The free market is there to serve our desires not the public at large!’
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s the same way they always operate. “Freedom of speech” means you can speak the way they want, and they don’t face consequences. Other speech is to be blocked. Same with the “free market” – if they want to boycott or protest something it’s fine, if someone else does the same with something they like it’s “cancel culture” and must be stopped.
It’s tiresome to realise that so many people never really mentally progressed past adolescence.
Re: Re: Re:
Just so we’re absolutely clear: Do you believe the United States federal government should have the absolute and legally unassailable right to force a privately owned queer-friendly open-to-the-public Mastodon instance that operates within U.S. borders into hosting any kind of queerphobic speech?
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know why this needs to continually be repeated, but the ENTIRE POINT of Section 230 was to protect EXACTLY this situation, in which doing any moderation/editorial work, wouldn’t make you liable for the content you host. So what you’re saying here is “don’t do what 230 was set up to protect and then claim you get 230 to protect you.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Entirely incorrect. You’ve written pages and pages and pages on this subject and you’re just freaking wrong.
The POINT of it is that a platform be allowed to host the speech of others without being liable for that speech. A newspaper, by contrast, IS largely responsible for whatever appears on it’s pages, not just the author, cuz it asserts editorial control.
CDA 230 allows very specific and limited exceptions to allow platforms to moderate without becoming the publisher. But anything beyond that, yeah, they’re liable for that.
It is absolutely NOT “doing any moderation/editorial work”, closer to the *opposite of that, and that most certainly is not the “point”. You’re just lying.
In a sane world, the viewpoint discrimination, the suppressing “misinformation”, “fact-checking” etc, that SM companies engage in absolutely would make them responsible for that content. The content has in fact been extensively curated and appended. But the few times it’s gone to court judges have just ignored the plain words of the law and the early precedents.
And now we have people like you lying about what the law actually says…..cuz you like the viewpoint discrimination.
Re: Re: Re:3
Please point to the text of §230 that states there is a distinction between a platform and a publisher…
Here, I’ll help:
(47 U.S. Code § 230)[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230]
Re: Re: Re:4
Opps:47 U.S. Code § 230
Re: Re: Re:4
Ignore Matty Bratty the Idiot, he’s just a fact optional troll. Just flag and move on.
Re: Re: Re:5
Facts are not an option for mbm
Re: Re: Re:3
You are ignoring the big difference between a newspaper and a platform. A newspaper makes editorial decisions before publication, while a platform makes moderation decisions after publication. That is an editor reads every word published in a newspaper, while a moderation team looks at a fraction of what is published via a platform.
Re: Re: Re:3
You are just wrong. Here is the relevant text of the law:
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Just change the law to say:
A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that is considered illegal under current law; or
That simple change would fix most of the ‘moderation’ that somehow only censors conservatives.
Re: Re: Re:5
Such a move would also run afoul of the First Amendment. The government can’t compel a business to decorate its products with pro- or anti-queer speech; it shouldn’t have the right to force a social media service into hosting pro- or anti-queer speech.
The “problem” with (as you put it) “moderation that somehow only censors conservatives” lies with the fact that the major social media companies want to attract as large a userbase as possible. To do that, they have to set standards and rules—terms of service, if you will—that allow for the most people to participate. Those standards will often aim for inclusivity on a broad scale, which means certain kinds of speech will often be penalized.
As an example, I’ll pull from part of mastodon.art’s Code of Conduct:
To put it bluntly: That Masto instance doesn’t allow racial slurs, misogynistic remarks, anti-queer slurs, mocking autistic people (among others), and shitting on people from other countries.
Few services want to have their reputations associated with allowing bigotry to flourish on their platforms; that’s why those services have rules against bigoted speech. Conservatives have a problem if they associate their ideologies with bigoted speech and those rules with “censorship of conservatives”. The burden for solving it lies not with Twitter or Facebook, but with conservatives.
Re: Re: Re:5 'I have been censored for my conservative views! ... you know, THOSE.'
Oh fun, I get to break out an old comment of mine that I threw together to address that particularly flawed argument a good while back. When reading just swap out ‘constitutionally protected’ with ‘legal’ and ‘unconstitutional’ with ‘illegal’.
‘As a reminder racism is constitutionally protected speech.
Sexism is constitutionally protected speech.
Arguing in favor of torturing gays until they ‘give up their sinful ways’, constitutionally protected speech.
Claiming that the nazis had the right idea and it’s a shame they were stopped before they could really do something about those shifty jews, constitutionally protected speech.
Saying that vaccines not only don’t work they actively make things worse? You guessed it, constitutionally protected speech.
Anyone who tries to argue that platforms should limit themselves to only excluding unconstitutional speech is arguing that all of the above and more should be exempt from moderation.’
Re: Re: Re:3
The amount of time you must dedicate to yoga to be able to kiss your own ass every single day.
Re: Re: Re:3
This is just wrong. How do I know? Because I’ve read the law. I’ve read the case law. I know the AUTHORS OF THE LAW and have spoken to them multiple times and they claim that the law set out to do exactly what I described above.
Who am I going to believe? The authors of the law, the judges who have ruled on it? Or some rando asshole on the internet who has been proven wrong so many times his name is a punchline here?
Re: Re: Re:4
Technically, some rando asshole who declared early on that it was his mission to harass you until you stop.
Re: Re: Re:3
§230 was passed in response to court cases that explicitly said that moderation makes you liable but not moderating doesn’t. The idea that it wasn’t meant to permit moderation is patently absurd.
No, you have it completely backwards. The exceptions are to when the platform isn’t liable, which are limited. The protections for moderation are incredibly and deliberately broad. Case law and the legislative history are extremely clear on this.
The broad interpretation of the law was used from the very beginning, and §230 has been cited in court many times, not just a few. And how do the plain words of the law support your construction at all?
You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Re: Re: Re:
In what fantasy land does being open to everyone mean allowing anybody to say anything they want? There are no social media platforms that operate that way, not a single one. Anyone can join by agreeing to abide by the site’s ToS, which dictate what speech and behavior will not be accepted. Your argument is a total strawman.
Re: Re: Re:2
Funny how the same people trying to frame social media as ‘open to everyone’ conveniently ignore the TOS that you have to agree to to use the platforms and which make clear that they are not open to every ‘viewpoint’.
Re: Re: Re:3
They also ignore that platforms with rules against expressing certain viewpoints (you know the ones…) have the unassailable legal right to make and enforce those rules.
Re: Re: Re:
Posting on Twitter isn’t open to everyone, and Twitter has never claimed that it is. It’s only open to people who agree to its terms of service.
Re: Re: Re:2
And even if it did claim it was open to everyone, Twitter would still retain the right to set its TOS/Code of Conduct however it wishes and enforce those rules as it sees fit. A service like Twitter opening itself to the public doesn’t make that service legally obligated to host bigots or their speech.
Re: Re: Re:3
Good point! The complaint about their moderation has at least two layers of wrong.
Re: Re: Re:3
To use an offline example: The local grocery store might be open to any member of the public coming in to shop while the store is open but that doesn’t mean they can’t and won’t give the boot to someone who comes in and starts trashing the shelves and/or harassing the staff and other customers.
Re:
Yeah, I bet that NPR was quite “pro-government” (using your definition, not mine) during the Trump administration.
Re:
“They would be out of business within weeks if they were independently financed.”
Not so sure about that ……..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/business/npr-trump-budget.html
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s a potential point that’s been brought up: NPR gets limited funding from direct government payouts. Instead, they seek corporate sponsorship donations. I’m not buying this theory, since NPR wouldn’t receive corporate sponsorships if they weren’t a government related entity. It’s a money laundering system, akin to how politicians ask donors to pay into their “foundation” organization, in return for political access. It’s a vehicle for bribery, through which money flows to the propagandists.
Re: Re: Re:
” I’m not buying this theory”
Ok
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no, Koby: Can you prove that NPR is a “money laundering system”?
Re: Re: Re:
Translation:
Re: Re: Re:2
Good God, y’all~
Re: Re: Re:3
Koby wrote:
What is he smoking
Re: Re: Re:4
Which user?
Because we know the “conservative” lot don’t do drugs unless “permitted” to by their shitheel leaders.
Re: Re: Re:5
They don’t need hallucinogens — they have Fox News, Alex Jones, and RT.
Re: Re: Re:6
“They don’t need hallucinogens – they have hallucinogens” – BV
Re: Re: Re:
Why wouldn’t they? Plenty of NGOs that receive no funding from the government at all receive corporate sponsorships. Plenty of them are journalistic. How is this unbelievable?
I see exactly no similarities. In particular, outside of taxes (obviously), none of the money ends up with the government. Really, this is less plausible than the explanation you are trying to disprove.
Assuming bribery is occurring, it’s not of the politicians or the government but of journalists. Given how many journalistic outlets that receive no government funding receive corporate funding for that purpose, that seems a lot more plausible. While I don’t necessarily agree, I believe alleging NPR has a pro-corporate bias is a lot more plausible than saying it is controlled by the government.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Despite what Wikipedia claims, it’s actually around 25%. NPR purposefully disguises a lot of the funding which is given through member stations rather than to the main org.
It’s scary how not public the info is, estimates range from 8% to 25%.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/taxpayers-provide-more-than-25-percent-of-nprs-funding-analyst-says
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not news, it’s entertainment!
LOL
Re: Re: Re:
The idiot genius has spoken once again! Digs up two articles that is ~12 and ~7 years old not realizing that the world has moved on and things have changed.
It’s so damn funny that every time he bothers to post links it declares him an idiot.
Re:
Here’s a simple litmus test…
Can a news reporter go on NPR and trash talk the current president and their policies and agenda?
Can a news reporter do the same on Chinese state media?
Can a news reporter do the same on Russian state media?
Can a news reporter do the same on Iranian state media?
That should be simple enough for even you to understand.
Re: Re:
We are talking about Kolby.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I agree that the NPR reporter’s punishment would be much less severe, at the cost of losing their job and career instead of getting disappeared. But it would, nonetheless, be government orchestrated punishment. So it definitely passes the litmus test for state controlled media, and is not independent.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no, Koby: If NPR fired a reporter for violating the group’s established standards of journalism/reporting—regardless of what politician or political group was being trashed—would that absolutely qualify as “government orchestrated punishment”?
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me you never listen to NPR, without saying you’ve never* listened to NPR.
*) Note: music programs don’t count
Re: Re: Re:
Care to cite an example of this happening or is this just another thing you made up to fit your narrative?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
There would need to have been a case of someone on NPR badmouthing brandon before that can happen.
Re: Re: Re:3
Just like the made up name of “brandon”, you again have proven yourself to make up random shit just to try and make your fantasy world fit reality.
IOW, you ain’t got shit dude.
BTW, are you a child not allowed to say the work “fuck”, otherwise why use the childish euphemism of brandon, just say “Fuck Joe Biden” if that’s what you feel. Here, I’ll help:
Fuck Donald Trump
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
So angry!
Remember how I said that a NPR news actor would face a less-severe punishment? I take it back. If an on-air personality were to trash talk brandon, I bet they would get disappeared. The managers would arrange for it in a heartbeat, out of fear that a woke mob could burn down the broadcast booth the following weekend.
Re: Re: Re:5
What makes you believe in the idea that NPR management would have an on-air personality killed over some trash-talking aimed at Joe Biden?
Re: Re: Re:6
You have to remember that the brain dead conservatives out there truly believe that the Clinton’s are capable of and have had people killed for opposing them.
These people are mentally defective and are the types that shoot up a pizza place based on some basement dweller saying it was true on the internet.
Re: Re: Re:5
So…. nothing… again.
Re: Re: Re:5
I dunno, Koby.
NPR did interview someone (an academic) who thought that rioting and looting was justified.
That article, I believe, is still up.
Most governments would order such an article either taken down or, more likely, never leave that reporter’s desk. But that one article is up on NPR’s site.
Not to mention that someone else brought up them criticizing successive presidents’ terms.
Maybe if your Nazi ass stopped being so defensive and you actually looked at the evidence…
But that’s expecting a level of self-awareness you CHOSE to not have, in order to keep harassing us.
Re: Re: Re:3
Pop-quiz Koby, Which president has fired government officials because they were “un-loyal” or badmouthed the president?
A) Joe Biden
B) Donald Trump
Re: Re: Re:3
“I don’t actually listen to NPR, but I’ll make some shit up about it as evidence to help bolster a completely BS argument.”
If you actually listened to NPR, you would know that they are critical of the Biden administration quite often. Here’s a small sampling of the sublects that come up with a critical take on the administration:
* the withdrawal from Afghanistan
* the immigration/border situation
* delayed response to the train wrecks
* the handling of the negotiations with the train workers contracts
* the handling of inflation
* the handling of the student loan situation
* the handling of oil and natural gas drilling leases in light of climate change
And that’s just a very few. When Biden or any of his officials are interviewed, they are hit with hard questions. They are fact-checked. When things are said that have already come up in fact-check investigations, they are called out on it.
It’s not that they are anti-government or pro-some liberal agenda. They are just very hard-hitting in their investigations into these topics. The same was true when Trump was in Office. And when Obama. And George W. Bush. And Clinton. And H.W. Bush. And Reagan. I was too young to listen before then.
NPR is often pegged as “left leaning” because they call things out as they are, but it’s far-right politicians who get butt-hurt about it and complain very publically. People made a big deal about the “identifies as an Asian” thing about Michelle Yeoh Oscar win, when they were just referring to an instance where an Asian who masked her identity as Asian had already won an Oscan (Luise Rainer in 1937). On NPR, facts matter. What doesn’t matter is the opinion of the government–at least not in how that influences their editorial decisions (it matters very much when they report on what the government is saying). They are remarkably polite, even when being treated like garbage. Sometimes being polite is seen as left-leaning.
Re: Re: Re:
So Koby.
If that’s the case, then that one funny article about the ethics of rioting and looting should have been scrubbed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting
This article should be 404, but it isn’t.
Re:
Not necessarily. If you don’t try to withhold the money to pressure them or tell them what or what not to say, you don’t exert any control.
Objectively false. NPR has come out against several positions held by the government in power.
Do you have evidence?
Quite the opposite.
With such logic any one receiving assistance, at any level, from the government is a state affiliated entity.
For example, a large corporation receiving subsidies from the government is a state affiliated entity. Also, the ultra rich with their private jet and super boat tax write offs are state affiliated entities.
You get the state affiliated entity label and you .. everybody gets the state affiliated label.
wooohoooo
“If you control the money”. So the first question is who controls the money.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
NPR is controlled by…corporate sponsors and licensing content to member stations. Like Radio and TV have done for decades. Government derived grants are less than 10% of revenue.
“They would be out of business within weeks if they were independently financed.”
Without any fiscal backing, NPR can run for 9 years at current burn rates. We can see their fiscal position. Without any grants, they still have 90% of their revenue. “weeks”? try well over a decade.
Ooooo. NPR might have to run another corporate-sponsored peice that will be pro-government because corporations need governments. At least the government isn’t dicating coverage, right?
Re:
This was meant to be in reply to Koby, who is factually wrong, as always.
He also seems to be prioritizing blue-check removal for accounts he doesn’t like, like the New York Times.
I must admit a limited amount of sympathy for the news outlets that have continued to stay on Twitter to get jerked around by its management. Musk’s approach to the press has been entirely clear since he banned a bunch of them back in December for the mere mention of the @elonjet account. If not sooner.
Musk deserves the lion’s share of the blame here, of course, but ain’t nobody forcing NPR or the NYT to stick around for him to point and laugh at. Don’t they have a small-town diner to be at or something?
Re:
When Twitter stops being any use to them, at all, they’ll stop. And Elon is doing his very, very best to hasten that day.
Re: Re:
Profiles in courage.
OMG
I’m state affiliated since I get a (non US) government supplement. That means you cannot trust anything I say/write since it will be state propaganda.
To the readers here: Sorry being exposed as a government plant by that Dastardly Musk, if it weren’t for him, those kids and that dog I would have been able to keep feeding you my views.
Re:
Have to ask… if government supplements are all it takes, does tornado damage relief to Arkansas and Mississippi (the people, the corporations, and/or the states themselves) count?
Might explain some of the rhetoric out of those states…
Here is something ELSE to consider, If the Govt was more… involved in NPR’s editorial process, COULD (not necissarily IS) a 1st Amendment issue? IF Musk truly thinks that NPR is state controlled, could he not bring up a 1st amendment lawsuit against it?
Re:
Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn’t mean the suit has merit.
His first hurdle in such a hypothetical would be standing.
Inability to understand the trustworthiness of sources is a core trait of reich-whingers like E. Lon Hubbard (neé Musk).
Just look at detritus like Batty Matty, who trusts sources that lie 100% like Project Veritas, exclusively cites frauds instead of the actual science he never understood, has never once cited a factual source that supports his lies. Or lostcause, who believes Breitbart prints facts and projects NYPost’s batboy-tabloid status on WaPo.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
WaPo isn’t as bad as CNN but both are straight tabloid trash, yes.
OH? Provide a citation. Because everytime Veritas catches a democrat out, they always scream something about “deceptively edited” but of course they do, they were caught saying really damning stuff. That never holds up tho, that’s just something they say cuz they got caught. It would be REAL hard for “editing” to manufacture any of that stuff. It’s long, winding conversations all on video.
But because idiots like you don’t want to believe “your side” is so evil, you want to believe them when they claim it’s lies. I’ve seen no evidence of that however, not ever.
So go ahead, show your work. Prove that Project Veritas lied.
Re: Re:
Which time? I mean, go to the Project Veritas wikipedia page, and look for yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Why? For the most part the wikipedia just cites various opinion articles, often from media orgs under attack themselves. It’s just spin, in other words. The only real “Deceptive” case was with ACORN, “pimp suit” vs normal clothes and all, but that’s a kinda minor thing and ACORN was, in fact, really dirty and eventually defunded. And that was basically his first story, he got a lot more rigorous after that.
I said provide proof, not wiki quoting people bitching that they’d been outed.
Re: Re: Re:2
“I said provide proof”
LMAO
Re: Re: Re:2
So anytime you provide a link to wikipedia as proof of your assertions, we can all dismiss it. Gotcha and good to know.
Re: Re: Re:3
He’s certainly doing a good job proving everything I said about him is 100% true by doubling down on it.
Re: Re: Re:2
But articles from Fox ‘News’ and American Thinker (wow…) are totally solid proof you guys!
Re:
Nah, I’m good.
Arguably the BBC is MORE deserving of that label given the revolving door between its executives and the membership and donors of the current governing party here in the UK.
Re:
I’d be curious about the CBC, as well.
Re:
Yeah, the government under Boris made some clear efforts to influence the actual output of the BBC, and in some cases apparently succeeded.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/15/troubling-messages-showing-no-10-pressure-on-bbc-need-investigating-say-former-staff
I wonder what label twitter puts on Pravda
Re:
You mean Donald Trump?
“State affiliated” for Musk is like that old art thing: “I know it when I see it.” (which just means one sees something as one wants to see it with no regard for what it really is–so, basically, “believing is seeing”)
Maybe he should just label it as, “This organization is financed in whole or in part by the US government”, like YouTube does. All the facts, none of the controversy of a word like “affiliated”.
That time NPR did it right
I was pretty far R in 2008 (as Karl @ DSLR might be able to attest). I was also fairly frustrated trying to find a news outlet interviewing conservative pols who could enunciate competitive policies in a helpful way. Fox news had gotten long lost after their 1B hours of Natalie Halloway coverage.
The network presenting pols the best was NPR (tho ABC was often good). All thru the 2008 election cycle, they made a point of getting R pols capable of answering complex policy questions (in a meaningful way) and put them against D pols who did the same.
To this day I consider NPR 08 to be the gold standard of election coverage – something I haven’t been able to say (about anyone) since.
Re:
Might the issue be that there are no longer any of these to be interviewed?
Bets?
Musk does not want NPR in Twitter anymore. Why else would he pull that stunt. Will (and when) NPR will leave Twitter? Place your bets!
npr has a gold badge. wonder if they’re paying $1k for this treatment.
Elon is a joke
Twitter will fail under him. Tesla will continue to fail under him. I fear for the well-being of SpaceX.
fwiw, looks like elon is state affiliated
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Yes, of course, electric cars only make sense when heavily subsidized. (and barely then) Everyone knows that. Tesla is founded on the fact the federal gov will pay people to drive cars that make no sense otherwise.
Re: Re:
“electric cars only make sense when heavily subsidized”
incorrect
Re: Re: Re:
No, for once he’s actually right. Cars, electric or otherwise, only make sense in the context of absolutely massive government subsidies (and hide many of their costs to boot).
Re: Re: Re:2
Subsidies to get the industry started, less than the fossil industry is subsidized, and less hidden cost than fossil fuel cars’ externalities.
Re: Re: Re:3
When I said “or otherwise”, what did you think I meant?
Most forms of transport are subsidized, to be clear, but motor vehicles in particular are the recipients of an absolutely staggering amount of government largess. The source of their motive power is irrelevant to that.
Re: Re: Re:
In fairness, all American motor manufacturers need government subsidies to stay afloat.
Re: Re:
Maybe you’re not so libertarian after all
Re:
Which state?
THe USA, or China?
Mike, what if you kept all the Twatter stories for one day, like #TwitTuesday or something, and posted them all at once?
Because I would love to see if the house trolls would actually explode.*
Purely as a social experiment, of course 🙂
*And maybe exhaust our misguided and apparently indefagitible troll whisperers to the point where they stop feeding the bastards.
The BBC still being exempt is really the cherry on top of this farce. BBC actually is state media.
Al Jazeera
Odd that Al Jazeera has escaped that labeling, even though they’re explicitly state-owned by Qatar and is famous for avoiding any critical position against the Qatar government… I wonder why…
ooooh, “Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund — which invested $375 million in Elon Musk’s Twitter buyout”. Well, I’m sure that’s just happenstance.
They should remove the BBC as an example.
The Beeb lost its editorial independence a long time ago. It is now nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the fascist Tory government.
Of COURSE NPR is state-controlled media! Have we all forgotten how hard it was pushing MAGA propaganda during the Trump administration? /s
breaking news update
Well – this interesting …
Elon Musk says NPR’s ‘state-affiliated media’ label might not have been accurate
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/06/1168455846/elon-musk-says-nprs-state-affiliated-media-label-might-not-have-been-accurate
State sponsored entity? Musk, look in the mirror.
With all due respect to “Who Cares” …
If anything/anyone deserves a “state sponsored” label, it should be SpaceX and by extension, Elon Musk.
SpaceX directly receives government funding to both perform actions for and at the direction of the US government in order to achieve the policies and goals set out by the US government.
In fact, SpaceX would have gone into bankruptcy were it not for highly risky funding which could only have be considered a government bailout at the time, which worked out for both parties.
Ongoing government funding of SpaceX far exceeds both in actual dollar amount and by percentage of revenue anything that NPR or CPB receive.
As the voice of SpaceX, that must make Musk a state sponsored media entity.
BBC
Even the Beeb has been branded now – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65226481
Even worse now
It’s even worse now, Elmo has changed the label to say “government funded media”, which is laughable at best with the 1% that NPR gets from the government.
But it is in line with the way a certain altright part of society looks at any media that gets even a little bit of money of the government. They like to discredit those media outlets, because they form the biggest thread for that outgroup.
Interesting debate here
This is a matter of drawing the line snd politics. NPR has LONG been the news arm of the Democrat party. Nobody denies that in good faith.
And most people don’t take issue with it… most.
It’s a simple fact we (almost) all know.
That’s not to say the local station products are one sided, or even political. NPR is a combination of national production and local shows. And I’ve heard shows about pro wrestling, recycling, and creating home made glass art.
But Musk is not wrong here either. As many of the national shows are undeniably free political advertising for party members.
The issue here becomes, affiliated. As the Democratic Party is the leader of our current government it would be very not to see it as affiliated media. In fact many hosts don’t deny it.
That’s not to say it’s state media or even state sponsored media. But it is definitely party affiliated. With the current ruling party.
We could look at what Twitter before left up and what they took down. The completely debunked wapo story of Trump commenting against deceased groups stayed up completely. The factual story of the Biden laptop taken down.
I won’t say the choices themselves were partisan. Old twitter’s personal politics leaned well left and their beliefs in what was reliable news leaned left as a result.
New twitter leans right and as such their beliefs in news also does.
But you’ll be hard pressed to find many who don’t see the “conflict” in NPR. Thing is, this is not really a big deal. Sure, the label is self aggrandising. But it’s not actually incorrect.
Elon's Account
With all the money he gets from the US government, someone should tell Elon to label his own Twitter account as “US state-affiliated media”.