It's not up to them, the 4% of their revenue that comes from federal funds comes to them through member station payments. They don't control the member stations or how they are funded.

Also, how could they be any more open about this? If you listen to any NPR member station you'll hear an acknowledgement of federal funds like once an hour.

NPR needs money and they need editorial freedom, they seem to have both. I really can't fault them for that, editorial independence is the yardstick by which media should be judged unless there is outright ownership.

Money can be easily tracked. Editorial independence cannot be.

I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been. They know member donations are their biggest funding source, so they largely tell their audience what they want to hear.

Put another way, I don't think pure editorial independence exists. Everyone knows where their bread is being buttered.

> I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been.

Not even close from my outsider perspective.

> I actually think NPR has been captured by their audience in the same way MSNBC and Fox News has been.

I... don't know. When the topic comes up there sure are a lot of us NPR listeners who are in rather a love-hate relationship with it, leaning toward "hate". Half the time I'm listening I'm shaking my head at how very self-parody-like NPR they're being or yelling at them to stop doing such shitty coverage. Like, the best news on my local station, far and away, is when they rebroadcast BBC content. If I could tune into actual BBC stations when driving, I'd probably listen to that a lot more than NPR. These days especially, NPR's only got a very-few programs I'd bother to save from a fire, as it were, or that I even might go out of my way to listen to when not in the car.

It's just that there's not a lot of better news/commentary/talk programming on the radio dial.

I agree, but in many ways it's a product of syndication. When you get out of that influence (e.g., independently published podcasters) the scope of quality becomes _much_ broader.

I'm old enough to remember finding good-quality content on NPR, but I now look toward podcasts in the special interest I'm looking for to find good-quality audio-streamed information.

State funding of media, regardless of how it’s structured, creates an obvious conflict of interest with editorial freedom. Theoretically it’s possible for a state funded media company to exercise editorial freedom, just like it would be theoretically possible for a climate study funded by ExxonMobile to exercise academic freedom, but not without acknowledging that the conflict of interest exists. Maybe they are a high integrity organisation, but the existence of this conflict of interest isn’t really up for debate. Maybe it’s not necessary for any state funded media to be labelled on Twitter, but if you’re going to label any of it, then you should label all of it.

The NPR makes no secret of its funding. But stamping a label on it like this implies that they are at the same level as the Chinese and Russian official state channels and lapdog institutions, which is the effect that Musk is going for here, which clearly is unfair to the NPR.

Any attempt to whitewash even aspects of it is in part giving credit to it and I'm just not going to carry Musk's water on this. It's a petty move by a petty person, who uses the platform that he bought to further his new best buddies interests by fomenting distrust in media institutions that he can't buy or control.

NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has. You can make your own judgements about how influential that conflict is for different outlets, but the existence of it cannot be denied. If you think labelling the conflict of interest is worthwhile (as other social media platforms also do), then you have to do it for all outlets that have it. Otherwise you’re revealing that you’re actually pursing some other alternative agenda.

Personally I think it’s a stupid idea in general. But that’s because I’m against any organisation attempting to establish itself as an authority over the concept of the truth.

NPR is not Stars and Stripes, Voice of America or even the BBC. Assuming 4% in direct government funding (from all levels) as estimated elsewhere in the thread, plus some amount in government subsidization of donations to a registered non-profit; the fiscal contributions from government is meaningful, but not sufficient to assume it biases coverage.

Stars and Stripes has a mix of funding, including about half its budget from the department of defense, but has editorial independence; although I imagine it's hard not to be influenced.

Even Voice of America has safeguards for editorial independence, although its budget is fully state funded.

> NPR has exactly the same conflict of interest in regards to funding that RT has.

Sorry, but that is factually incorrect.

Media companies receiving public funding is a conflict of interest with editorial independence, both RT and NPR receiving public funding. These are facts.

The fact is that the one is a state sponsored mouthpiece and the other is a editorially independent organization.

If you have proof that the NPR is a mouthpiece for the US government then now would be a fine time to provide it, otherwise it is just trying to throw shade in the exact same way that Elon Musk is trying to.

There are many reasons other than funding to criticize RT, but RT and NPR have the same conflict of interested created by their funding sources. If you’re not able to appreciate this very simple fact then I would highly suggest you engage in some self-reflection.

Funding doesn't have to be a conflict of interest depending on how it's organised. But Twitter's own definition of "state affiliated media" is not about funding, but about editorial control, where NPR is independent. Labeling NPR as "state affiliated" is clearly wrong according to Twitter's own definition.

> State funding of media, regardless of how it’s structured, creates an obvious conflict of interest with editorial freedom.

How is this not true of any funding of media?

At least with government funding—even if there is outright editorial control—in a democratic country, you as a citizen have the ability to vote on how you think that funding and control should be exercised. Furthermore, it is massively easier to get laws in place that mandate transparency for government-funded entities than for private ones, so whatever influences there may be on their reporting would be much more visible.

The concern that media companies can have interests that don’t align with journalistic integrity does apply to any media company. Whenever you see Rupert Murdoch’s name being discussed, it’s probably in relation to this topic. However it is harmful in a unique way when the government creates a conflict of interest between editorial independence, and serving the states agenda, due to the way in which that undermines the principle that a democratic society requires freedom of the press.

put a better way, theoretically it's possible for an entity that has received a small amount of funds from the state, to be controlled by that state, just like SpaceX, which is state funded, could be controlled by that state, and just like theoretically I could give you a dollar and then control you, but any actual accusation of such or implication thereof would need actual evidence behind it, or else such conspiracy theories based only on incentives and no evidence can be dismissed out of hand.

No evidence of bias is required to establish that a conflict of interest exists. One reason that people are interested in knowing when a conflict of interest exists, is that is generally not possible to prove what influences are motivating decision making.

evidence of bias is required to establish bias, even if there's the appearance of a conflict of interest, which given the miniscule amount of funding in question here, doesn't even seem to be the case, either.

many conspiracy theorists will say that it's impossible to prove their conspiracy theory (in this case, any actual bias), but that's their problem, not the world's

maybe they can spend more time interviewing, investigating, doing statistical analysis, etc to find any evidence of their conspiracy theories, and less time just coming up with the theories?

I’m not alleging any bias. I’m stating that the funding model creates a conflict of interest, which is simply factually correct.

> given the miniscule amount of funding in question here, doesn't even seem to be the case

According to NPR themselves, federal funding is essential for their ongoing existence.

> Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.

> The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution.

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

if there is no bias, there is no issue, even if there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, which given the small portion of funding in question here, there doesn't even seem to be

I’m not alleging there is no bias either. The reason that managing conflicting interests is important in the first place is because it’s not possible to objectively measure their influence.

There is also not an “appearance” of conflicting interests here. There is factually a conflicting interest between relying on an entity for funding, and an expectation that you’ll provide impartial media coverage of them.

This exists regardless of how small you think this reliance is. But even then, your attempt to minimise it is directly contradicted by NPR, who claim it is “essential” to their ability to operate.

I'm not alleging that you're alleging that there's no bias either, but either you have convincing evidence there is, or we fall back to there not being any until you do (and your claims that the conspiracy theory is impossible to prove are unconvincing, many conspiracy theorists say the same thing)

As for your opinion about how much of a conflict of interest or appearance thereof, if you trust NPR as a reliable source on this matter, then we can trust them also saying they have editorial independence (read: no bias)

your assertions of an expectation are similarly unconvincing, it's literally just you claiming as such, when others recognize that, like I can receive a dollar and not be controlled by the giver, so can NPR

I am not sure what you mean by them being open about it. Looks to me that they are open about the funding they get. Them getting grants to service communities that are not profitable doesn't mean that they take marching orders from Washington.

I feel like you're acting in bad faith conflating "public" and "state" in this instance. Wikipedia is an apt comparison that receives the vast majority of its funding through donations. It has received grants, but it's not "state run media" at all.

If the bar for being state affiliated is receiving money from the federal government, then I'm sure every news outlet and business of reasonable size qualifies (especially after the PPP loans).