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: , , ,
Companies: npr, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

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”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
154 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
DJ (profile) says:

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.

bhull242 (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

You have to ask yourself two questions in this situation:

  1. Does a significant amount of funding for a media group come from government funds?
  2. Irrespective of the first question: Does the government exert editorial control of any kind over the output of said media group?

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.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Does a significant amount of funding for a media group come from government funds?

If the answer to both questions is “no” (as it is with NPR),

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Going by Twitter 2.0’s updated definition (emphasis mine):

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.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

if… you are unable to find it, I am very much afraid me repeating it would not help you at all.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

That, or the commenter was asking for Mike’s and us commenters’ personal definitions.

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

he’s letting a thousand flowers of various ideologies bloom

…said nobody who understands what that phrase actually means.

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

common sense perspectives, like the fact that men can never be women, for example

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

T.L. (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

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?

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If you say you’re open to everyone, then you allow everyone to speak, regardless of viewpoint.

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.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

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.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not buying this theory, since NPR wouldn’t receive corporate sponsorships if they weren’t a government related entity.

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?

It’s a money laundering system, akin to how politicians ask donors to pay into their “foundation” organization, in return for political access.

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.

It’s a vehicle for bribery, through which money flows to the propagandists.

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.

Matthew M Bennett says:

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

NPR clearly demonstrates the link between government financing and government control.

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

it would, nonetheless, be government orchestrated punishment

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”?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

NPR reporter’s punishment would be much less severe, at the cost of losing their job and career instead of getting disappeared.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

There would need to have been a case of someone on NPR badmouthing brandon before that can happen.

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.

Koby (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

When you control the money, you control the editorial process.

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.

NPR has consistently come out in favor of pro-government political positions, especially those that pay their salaries.

Objectively false. NPR has come out against several positions held by the government in power.

They would be out of business within weeks if they were independently financed.

Do you have evidence?

NPR clearly demonstrates the link between government financing and government control.

Quite the opposite.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

“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?

Thad (profile) says:

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?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Who Cares (profile) says:

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.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

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.

Matt Bennett says:

Re:

WaPo isn’t as bad as CNN but both are straight tabloid trash, yes.

Batty Matty, who trusts sources that lie 100% like Project Veritas

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matt Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

Which time? I mean, go to the Project Veritas wikipedia page, and look for yourself.

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
NoahVail (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
allengarvin (profile) says:

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.

IanW (profile) says:

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.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

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.

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...