Why not just look at the NPR page we're discussing, which says 13% of public radio station revenue is from federal funds? 13% of 31% is 4%.

Edit: The 13% is from all government funds, not just federal.

Because not all government funding is federal funding.

Random example from an NPR member station's web site:

  KCRW is supported, in part, by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through the Los Angeles County Department of Arts & Culture. The Department's Organizational Grant Program helps fund a wide variety of arts, culture, and music programs that you hear on air each day!

I apologize for my imprecise language. The 13% I quoted includes "Federal, state and local governments". Again this is all on the web page we're all discussing, in a very easy-to-understand chart.

You're assuming Rahim Nathwani is not purposefully feigning ignorance / misunderstanding. He's 100% doing it on purpose.

The question is: why is he dying on this hill?

NPR has a history of downplaying their government funding, I'm not sure if you should use them as your main source. I know in the past they've said it was around 5%, while independent investigations found it was closer to 20-40%

That's the source we're discussing here. If you have some evidence that they're lying about this then please post it, I would genuinely be interested to see it.

Thank you for the number. In context, the EU is 15% of revenue for most ad based tech platforms, and its regulation has shown unbounded control over them.

Yes, and this gives their funders editorial control how?

Why else do they get this source of funding that other networks don't have? (Though this is still just a theory and not reason to slap "govt-affiliated" on them. "Govt-funded" is fair.)

You should look into their origin story if you want an answer. And no, Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control. The BBC in the UK, the NOS in NL, NPR in the United States, and so on are all official channels but they also have their own editorial staff and only in very rare cases does the government directly intervene in the production (and usually simultaneously on other channels as well). So this is simply Elon playing stupid games, which he seems to be very good at.

NPR was created after the signing of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 aiming to increase public education through media, which doesn't really answer my question.

> Govt-Funded is also not fair absent an indication of editorial control

But they're govt-funded. BBC is too.

They get this source of funding because that is how they were created and entities that were created through a different mechanism (for instance: to become the mouthpiece for a political stream or for commercial reasons) are a different kind of animal.

The government allocates funds to many things that it may consider useful, such as health care, infrastructure and education. This does not necessarily imply that the government does this to create a mechanism of influence, as opposed to their counterparts in countries that are run as dictatorships. Naming the NPR in the same breath as the Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean state media is mistaken at best and maliciously dishonest at worst. Knowing what I know about Musk it is a fair bet we're looking at the latter.

It should be under the same label as BBC, just govt-funded. Up to you what you think of that. State-affiliated means definite editorial control. Syria etc call those outlets education too.

And I'm pretty sure they'd have been fine with that, however, the BBC label reads 'Publicly funded media', not 'Government funded'.

"Publicly-funded" is fine too.

Primarily, because NPR affiliate stations service areas where there aren't incentives for private stations. Meaning, without these public radio stations, these areas would be without news and the entertainment broadcasting NPR provides.

This isn't true for stations like WNYC, but it is true for much of the US.

The small affiliates need subsidies, because it costs a lot to run the stations.

NPR has done like, a million segments on this. It's interesting stuff. Easy to learn about!

NPR, the national organization, receives federal funding. Maybe not a lot, but still more than anyone else.

> NPR has done like, a million segments on this

Yeah, and I've heard one of them, but are you really going to take NPR's own explanation for its funding without a grain of salt?

No I'm referring to them having open discussions about their logic for continuing to receive funding. They don't really do "explanations" with regards to their own operations, general it is a discussion about what is going on. They are a pretty transparent organization.

You'll be more persuasive you actually answer his question instead of further casting aspersions.

I don't have evidence of federal editorial control over NPR, nor does anyone have evidence of the absence, which is why I say that only "govt-funded" is a fair label.

I was so surprised by the first statement in your comment, that I stopped reading right there, and searched online to see if I could confirm/deny the statement. Then I wrote a reply without reading the rest of your comment.

I didn't say anything about editorial control.

That's the thing that matters. The funding isn't relevant, but making a ruckus about the funding is the tool through which Musk has plausible deniability that this was ever about editorial control. It is factually correct but conveys no information other than misdirection and you are falling for it hook, line and sinker. NPR has a lot of staffers, want to bet that at least a number of them have prior government employment on their CVs? Want to bet that some of them will leave NPR for government? That too would be utterly irrelevant, but you could make a nice argument about it and maybe even prove it to be factually correct. In the end it's all just noise and no signal.

State affiliated media are those media institutions that are editorially controlled by the nation state where they are based, and funding is secondary to that by a very large distance.

> you are falling for it hook, line and sinker

I haven't made any statement (nor drawn any conclusion) about whether NPR's content is controlled or influenced by any level of government. So I'm not sure what I've fallen for?

I've only talked about funding. That may be irrelevant, but I only talked about it in response to something you brought up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The whole point is that this discussion is the result of a label that is applied maliciously, focusing on the label and/or the accuracy of the label misses the point: the label should not have been applied because historically it has been applied on entities that are vastly different from the NPR. So now you have to wonder why it was applied, instead of trying to figure out if it applies or not.

> So now you have to wonder why it was applied, instead of trying to figure out if it applies or not.

Now the question is whether you are willing to apply the same analysis to Twitter's decision to apply its "Hacked Materials Policy" in 2020 in order to block any discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

See other comments on exactly that subject in this thread.

Really, it's a bit like 'but her emails' or 'Benghazi' at this point. Let's not pollute HN, shall we?

Asking this question is the only way of determining whether a person is acting from a truly principled position, or whether they are using situational ethics.

The only true principle is one that binds your allies and your opponents equally. If it only applies to your opponents, then it's merely a rationalization.

I'm interested in finding like-minded people who are committed to applying principles equally. It's the only way of mediating conflict that does not devolve into pure tribalism. Unfortunately few people seem to be interested.

I think you will find that dragging in unrelated subjects isn't going to help make your argument because you are trying to find purchase on the individuals that you are talking to rather than to discuss the subject matter.

Applying principles equally implies that the subjects are comparable, which may be the case in your world view but you will find that your worldview rarely if ever overlaps the worldview of another person. So instead of trying to match worldviews we discuss topics individually of each other so that there is room for less than 100% black/white differentiation. Given two subjects that two people may or may not agree on there will be four populations of results given a large enough sample size. Whether you believe that those people are able to rationally apply their own principles or not isn't really the question the question is whether they believe that they are doing so and cherry picking your subjects doesn't give you more grip on their worldview, it only serves to reinforce your own.

It sounds like you don't think anyone should ever have to defend the question of why they apply different standards to different cases.

Suppose we have two warring factions that both constantly accuse each other of wrongs that they also commit. How do we escape the cycle of escalation?

> How do we escape the cycle of escalation?

By looking at each case individually. Rules are fun to make but tend to not work as soon as things get a bit more complicated. That's why we don't just have laws but also judges.

Judges do the opposite of looking at each case individually. The overriding principle of common law jurisdictions is stare decisis, which is to apply principles consistently according to precedent.

For my part, I look at this as an iterated prisoner's dilemma. I want to live in a society that values fairness and equal protection above all, even when that means conceding things that I would prefer not to concede if I was acting in pure self-interest.

I'll be honest, at a base level it amuses me to see Twitter label NPR as "Government-funded media," and to see NPR get mad about it. But because I want to live in a fair society, I'm willing to set that base feeling aside, and take really seriously the question of whether this is truly fair or merely the petty and arbitrary actions of an unprincipled billionaire.

But this deal only works if the other side is willing to do the same. And I have seen too many rounds of this iterated prisoner's dilemma where the other side is happy to take the W when it benefits them.

If I ally with the people criticizing Musk, but those same people are not willing to cooperate in pursuit of fairness when power benefits them, then I am in the loser quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma. No thanks.

So unless I see critics of Musk appeal to general principles that they are willing to stand up for, across the board, I just get out my popcorn and enjoy the show.

Looks like a lot of words to say "rules for thee but not for me"

The only reason in theory for a place to put a "state media" label is to imply the State has editorial control.

it sounds, then, that you'd agree with an accurate compromise:

"receives a small amount of funding from the federal government but maintains editorial independence"

all true, so better than the current label

yes

If I'm giving you a regular flow of money that keeps you well fed and housed in a nice area, you're going to at least subconsciously care about how I perceive you and if I approve of the things you're doing, because I have the power to cut off that flow of money at any time.

This is why many wealthy individuals and organizations donate to both political parties. The implicit threat of losing a flow of money you've become accustomed to is more powerful that the vague promise of a new flow of money that you can currently live without.

Old money and power don't control things with a loud command, but with a subtle flash of facial displeasure.

Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it. But from where I'm sitting - far outside of the USA - they offer some of the most balanced and clean reporting out there (and that includes the BBC).

I agree with your perception. There are many within the US that simply have a different window of what they find to be acceptable sources, topics, and opinions to entertain. The word 'balanced' implies a sort of central tendency, which can vary depending on what someone finds worthy of consideration.

They aren’t even slightly balanced anymore, especially their radio stuff. They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. I didn’t hear a single positive thing about anything the Trump administration did during his presidency, only after the last election. You can’t turn on your local station without hearing some identity politics within a few minutes - either from them or NPR itself. They often only have one “side” being interviewed for their reporting.

It just so happens that Republicans want to pull their funding and Democrats don’t. That’s a bit of a chicken or the egg type situation.

It’s sad because they used to be pretty good, and were probably the last bastion of somewhat balanced reporting in our country.

So you thought they were pretty good until Trump came along and then they did a hard left? Have you considered the possibility that they didn't change at all and that their reporting was on the money?

People that urgently want to believe the Hunter Biden laptop story was somehow relevant tend to be hardliner Trump supporters and I find it hard to see how if that is their perspective they could be convinced that Trump has been a disaster for US politics if they haven't come to that conclusion on their own by now.

Think about it: Republicans want to pull their funding. Why would that be? Because they are reporting the facts and that is inconvenient to them? Or for some non-partisan reason that I'm currently unaware of? There is this quote by Colbert: "Reality has a left wing bias" or something to that effect. NPR reporting leans 'left' only if you are far to the right of center. For the rest of the world - me included - it is still center or center right depending on the context.

Republicans have been wanting to pull their funding for 60 years because they don't think taxpayers should be funding it.

They should not be receiving public funds if they are going to continue to produce ideologically inclined content. At this point, they are no different than a little neoliberal/progressive think tank. And an honest assessment of the content means that they lean heavily to the left.

Polls have demonstrated that if the public had known the full extent of the laptop revelations (among them that Hunter calls Biden "Pedo Peter") they may have voted differently.

Instead, the media & NPR schemed to not only keep it secret, but gaslight the public that it was Russian propaganda.

Similar to how the Ashley Biden diary (where she stated that Biden's childhood visits to her shower really messed her up). The media, NPR included, deliberately covered up "inconvenient facts", to help a specific candidate win.

> Polls have demonstrated that if the public had known the full extent of the laptop revelations they may have voted differently.

How the public reacts to news is precisely why you have to have some restraint as a news editor. Because if you don't have restraint you end up being James Comey.

> Polls have demonstrated that if the public had known the full extent of the laptop revelations (among them that Hunter calls Biden “Pedo Peter”) they may have voted differently.

“May have” is exactly what the complete absence of any evidence gives you, so this is basically saying “polls have provided no useful information to differentiate this counterfactual from any other counterfactual”.

I'm far from a Trump supporter - I don't consider myself to be a republican or a democrat. I like some policies from one side and some from the other, and I think in a lot of instances (like abortion) a compromise would be best instead of fully one way or the other.

I think Trump getting elected made a lot of people on the left that felt they had some "power" over elections feel like they somehow failed. Keep in mind how scared they were. This American Life did a show on how Trump could basically launch nukes whenever he wanted, for instance. We had years of "Russian collusion." Suddenly it became their mission to not only ensure it didn't happen again, but their opinion of republicans radically shifted.

If you can't tell that NPR is hard on the left then it's you who is off of the charts politically. The way they've treated the Trump administration vs the Biden administration is absolutely laughable.

This is all anecdotal, but this one hits home for me. As a longtime NPR supporter well before the 2016 election, I wholeheartedly agree with all your comments. There was a drastic change leading up to that 2016 mess. We shouldn't forget the comment section was shut down in 2015 as well. An abstraction layer was added to it as a solution, but it really seemed to take away from the site as there were a lot of great discussions and debates taking place.

I'm fairly anti-Trump myself, but he never lived in my head rent free - a spade is a spade. The bias can be heard within minutes of tuning in, which I still do every time I'm in the car. I treat it just like I do CNN or Fox, which is with a grain of salt.

All that being said, there is still a lot of really awesome content coming from them. This American Life is still one of my all time favorites.

> They took a hard turn left after Trump was nominated.

This would seemingly support that they are less than state controlled; The idea that the executive branch, the senate majority, and the house majority would be criticized by a state sponsored media in recent history suggests independence.

If Side A has wanted to defund you for decades and Side B, and you always paint Side A in a negative light and Side B in a positive...

They aren't controlled by either party but I doubt that doesn't have an influence on their reporting.

Have you ever happened to think that maybe everything Trump did was awful and un-American, and hence it was reported on ACCURATELY?

Truly amazing how Conservatives always claim bias instead of stopping and thinking "Are we the assholes?"

Every political administration in the history of forever has had good policies and bad policies.

He did a lot as far as medical pricing, forcing hospitals to have price transparency. Medications were also supposed to have pricing listed on their commercials - and did for a short while. It looks like the courts blocked it, from a quick Google. Regardless of whether you think tax cuts are a good thing, increasing the standard deduction made tax season a lot easier for many people.

Personally I think clamping down on illegal immigration is a good thing, though some may disagree. I've literally never heard one single word from NPR about any negatives from unchecked illegal immigration, but many, many, many sob stories from the other direction.

So, there's some examples. I find that most people that hate a politician mostly do it because they're on the wrong side. My wife's parents and sister were just railing against Desantis, even though they probably know very few of his policies as we're on the other side of the country - and what they do know are probably one-sided things from their preferred news sources.

And Hitler was a vegetarian. No amount of supposed "good" outweighs the absolute evil of the man. The same applies to Trump. The man is out-and-out Anti-American and is almost literally the embodiment of the seven deadly sins. I don't give a crap if her personally saved 1000 puppies from dying in a fire. It doesn't outweigh the rest of his actions.

> They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Because reporting on bullshit doesn't make you balanced. Balance isn't being in the middle of extremes, especially when the mainstream of politics in America for one party has gone off the rails.

> Show how the NPR is pulling their punches when they report on the Federal government and I'll consider it

Here you go! NPR on the Hunter Biden laptop story:

> We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions.

The words are from Terence Samuels, Managing Editor. [1]

So now lets run some thought experiments:

How would an impartial party convey this message? Would the implication that it is a "pure distraction" and a "waste of time" be made?

And now how do you think NPR coverage would have differed if the laptop had belonged to Donald Trump Jr? Do you think, under the exact same circumstances, NPR would have chosen not only to ignore the store completely, but also categorize it as "pure distraction" and a "waste of time"?

---

[1] https://twitter.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/13192811012239400...

Ah yes. The definitely real story of a man abandoning his laptop at a repair shop (which apparently had no way to contact him to pick up said laptop?), where once the laptop was abandoned the shop owner (rather than wiping and selling the computer) read through his emails and found some definitely real incriminating evidence that was super believable? It should tell you something that even Fox wasn't willing to run the story at first.

It's easy to lose track of things when you're high on meth.

He admits it was his.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/01/hunter-biden-admits-infamous-l...

It was his, that doesn't mean the origin story is correct. Also he's not an government employee so what is the newsworthiness of any of it?

His father flew him on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.

"Hold 10 for the big guy".

You gotta be pretty naive to think that's above board.

> "Hold 10 for the big guy".

Unproven innuendo.

> His father flew him on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.

Shouldn't have happened if he was doing business there. Also, again, where is your proof? I Googled it but all I could find was a claim Trump made while campaigning:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-we-know-about-hunter-biden...

"Mr. Trump hasn’t provided evidence to support the $1.5 billion financial claim"

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-claims-about-hunter...

"We have found no evidence to contradict that, and Trump hasn’t provided any. We also found no evidence that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to enrich his son."

But considering Trump's son in law was doing this while in office:

https://thehill.com/homenews/3927750-kushner-firm-received-h...

While working in the White House, the comparison is unequal at best. At worst, it is another example of an accusation being a confession.

Please know I'm not being partisan and would love to see equal treatment regardless of political party.

> unproven innuendo

Come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The business partner Bobulinski also considered it to be meaning Biden in an interview in mainstream media.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/hunter-bidens-biz-partner-call...

> where's your proof

”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54553132

The google bubble strikes again? Maybe it's only showing you what you want to see. Try DuckDuckGo it seems less prone at ideologically memory holing news stories.

> Come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The business partner Bobulinski also considered it to be meaning Biden in an interview in mainstream media.

Again, this is not proof. You clearly want this to be true, therefore you don't need evidence. I can't "wake up" as you have, because I don't have the motivation to believe it the way you do. True things are awarded the title of true because they can be proven, with evidence. Not because they confirm the beliefs you already held.

Whoever Bobulinski is, you are quoting his public statements, which aren't under oath, where there is actual penalty for lying. He did sit with the FBI, but then he made a tour of right wing media making unrelated statements (as far as we know), which makes this a politically motivated PR campaign, nothing more. If he had given the FBI something to act on, they would have done so. They have no qualms about influencing elections:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499868601...

> ”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”

Right, he was on the plane. That's what is confirmed. You made specific accusations that appears to have come from Trump himself, which it goes without saying is not a trustworthy source. Who confirmed nature of the "deals" he made? What were they, when did they occur, and how do we know Joe Biden was involved? Actual evidence please.

Regardless, it has raised questions about conflicts of interest and impartiality. Its a broader problem than just the Bidens or democrats, we see this shit under every president. The whole US political system is steeped in this corruption and influence peddling.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, and is in a pond with a bunch of other ducks, do we really need a court case to prove its a duck?

Do you not see how this is editorializing? They refuse to cover story having to do with the son of the Democratic candidate. And they pretended the story was not real.

1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.

2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

That's why.

> 1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.

This is a complete assumption on their part if that happened. Instead of researching and taking time to assess the finding, they assume foul play. Why does it happen conveniently when the Democrat Joe Biden would suffer from investigating this clearly? Why would they assume it was stolen? Why would they assume it was Russian disinfo? Do you not see the clear profile of ideological politicing at play here? It's all conveniently explained away and meanwhile they get to keep playing politics and pretending to be bipartisan.

> 2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

So being a cocaine addict is newsworthy when it's the Trump kids but not when its a Biden kid?

>So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

Strong disagree. This is exactly the thing that muckraking should uncover. Again, if this was about a Trump kid, everyone would want to know and investigate it. Including you and me.

This is quite a terrible take, considering the story has been proven to be true. Your sarcastic tone really annoys me since the media spent half a year, pretending the story wasn’t real.

I fully stand behind the NPR on this. I think the Hunter Biden laptop story is and was a distraction, and that the lives of family members of politicians should be off-limits for news coverage, positive or negative until they themselves insert themselves into the political arena. Let's face it squarely: the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.

The lives of family members of politicians and government employees should be completely on-limits for news coverage, provided that could be newsworthy, because using one's family is one method of laundering corruption.

Let's say for example you need a permit approved by the CITYNAME Department of Buildings. CITYNAME is slow to process permit applications, but it is common knowledge that using a particular expeditor consulting company actually helps to get your permit approved quickly. It would definitely be newsworthy if that consulting company was owned by a spouse, sibling, parent, cousin, etc. of someone in the building department. I personally know someone who was not able to open up a store in a city I lived because the inspector literally said something was deficient and recommended some local company nearby to "fix it" for approximately $50,000.

It is a similar reason why working in an investment bank, at least in the US, you have to agree that both you and your close family members must agree to trading restrictions so as not to pose a conflict of interest with any of the bank's clients. If such a restriction was not in place, then it would be easy to just pass insider information to your spouse or brother and have them make money based on news that is about to be announced.

Yes, using one's family can be used to launder money. But it can also be used to smear others. And because of that some prudence is required. And since all of the facts on that particular case have come out by now - or at least, given the ones that did come out without knowing whether or not that is exhaustive - I'd say the NPR made the right call.

It is unfortunate that the news would have been too close to the election, so I have some understanding why some news organizations handled the story they did.

I liken this to the Google, and other tech companies, interviewing process. It is better to miss out on a good hire, than hire (or elect) someone that was a false positive for good. So based on reasonable doubt or suspicion, a story like this should cause anyone connected to be considered not a good choice for government employment anywhere since it could cause the US to be taken advantage of by any relevant other countries.

They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.

There's a reason for that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi...

> The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

It’s weird to give a reason why NPR didn’t do something by citing an article from February of the following year.

The story was suspicious for many reasons, is the point.

And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.

> not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak

I'm sorry but what are you talking about? Leaks of sensitive information are supposed to be supported by every journalist, why? What if they serve 0 whistleblowing purpose, and are just a security incident. "That's good too!" Why?

The accusation you make that "corporate journalists" are pro government is just projection, because you clearly believe that every journalist should be anti-USG by default.

> Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder.

I mean no offense by this, but you clearly don't understand how this works. Ex-intel officials don't speak up often, if at all. They hate having a public opinion, it goes against all their training. They only do so in extreme situations.

Of course you have a handful of ex-intel folks that do the opposite to try and have a career in media, but that's not what that letter represented.

Journalists will chime in on leaks/hacks when their is a way to leverage them ideologically. What is considered whistleblowing is part of the political process. If the same journalists jump on calling something whistleblowing when it serves democrats yet calling something else an unfortunate leak, it is an example of serving corporate/political interests above the public.

Do you not know what corporate journalists are? You can put it in the scary quotations but it doesn't make the term go away. It is an understood term. It exists. You can't scare-quote out of existence.

"you clearly believe that every journalist should be anti-USG by default" What in the world are you talking about? And you're accusing me of projection?

"Ex-intel officials don't speak up often, if at all. They hate having a public opinion, it goes against all their training. They only do so in extreme situations" Incorrect. They were happy to chime in in the fake Russia hoax scandal. The Steel dossier was poofed into existence by Hillary Clinton and our intelligence institutions were giddy to grind their ideological axes against Trump. It really shot their reputation. Read what the journalist Glenn Greenwald has to say about how agents in those institutions use their status to confer status to spurious claims for the purposes of politics.

Are you really going to say that our intelligence apparatus are trustworthy? The FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. They're trustworthy; is that what you're saying? I would love to hear your logic and any evidence you have in that direction.

> Journalists will chime in on leaks/hacks when their is a way to leverage them ideologically. What is considered whistleblowing is part of the political process. If the same journalists jump on calling something whistleblowing when it serves democrats yet calling something else an unfortunate leak, it is an example of serving corporate/political interests above the public.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

> Do you not know what corporate journalists are?

It strikes me as a codeword, like "elite". Trump isn't part of the elite somehow despite being a NYC billionaire. I bet you don't consider Tucker Carlson a "corporate journalist" (or "elite") despite being a perfect example of both. You give these labels based on ideology.

> Incorrect. They were happy to chime in in the fake Russia hoax scandal.

Yep here we go. You mean where Russia offered to help Trump's campaign, and he accepted? (that according to the bi-partisan senate intel report). There was nothing fake about it, and very few intel officials said anything about it. Except for the guy that studied third world dictators his whole career and said Trump looked just like one..

> The Steel dossier was poofed into existence by Hillary Clinton

It was opposition research paid for by a Republicans: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/website-with-gop-ties-...

> intelligence institutions were giddy to grind their ideological axes against Trump

National security is famously a conservative profession.

> Read what the journalist Glenn Greenwald

Lol. Truly. Laugh out loud. With no self-awareness you claim all "corporate journalists" are compromised and hold up Glenn Greenwald, a flaming ball of partisan grievance as a source? My word.

"I have no idea what you are trying to say." I don't know. Maybe try reading it then? Are you seriously denying that journalists have ideological commitments that eclipse their journalistic integrity? In 2023? After we've seen so many examples of their collusion with corporations, either with Silicon Valley or Big Pharma. Do you actually have an argument against this?

"It strikes me as a codeword, like "elite". Trump isn't part of the elite somehow despite being a NYC billionaire. I bet you don't consider Tucker Carlson a "corporate journalist" (or "elite") despite being a perfect example of both. You give these labels based on ideology." I don't care what you consider it. The phenomenon is real. Do you truly believe there to be no shared interest between journalists and corporations? Calling it a code word doesn't make it go away conveniently for you. What is your argument here?

"Trump isn't part of the elite somehow despite being a NYC billionaire" Don't give a crap about trump.

" I bet you don't consider Tucker Carlson a "corporate journalist" (or "elite") despite being a perfect example of both." You really need stop projecting. I don't give up a crap about Tucker. He's just as much a corporate hack as anyone else. Don't know why you give him special privilege. Again, do you actually have an argument here? Or is this another failed gotcha?

"Yep here we go. You mean where Russia offered to help Trump's campaign, and he accepted?" "It's worth noting, however, that many other claims in the dossier remain unverified or disputed, and the document as a whole continues to be the subject of much debate and investigation." <- Straight from the mouth of ChatGPT :). Your fait accompli is no such thing.

"It was opposition research paid for by a Republicans" LOL. Imagine thinking that PBS is a neutral, unbiased source lol. This is my point. This is the thing that I am talking about. How can you pretend they are unbiased? Again, from the mouth of ChatGPT,

"Yes, it is widely believed that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) funded the research that led to the creation of the Steele Dossier. In April 2016, the law firm Perkins Coie retained the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to conduct research on Donald Trump's connections to Russia. Fusion GPS then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research. According to campaign finance filings, the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Perkins Coie over $12 million for legal services, including opposition research." Thoughts?

"National security is famously a conservative profession" LOL. Proof? Or are you we saying things now?

"Lol. Truly. Laugh out loud. With no self-awareness you claim all "corporate journalists" are compromised and hold up Glenn Greenwald, a flaming ball of partisan grievance as a source? My word." Thank you for proving my point. Progressives hate his guts; I know this. You shown yourself to be the progressive partisan. You have no interest in neutrality. No interest in making our political environment more bipartisan. All you know is "Trump bad >:(". That's really sad. I have no love for the guy but people like you remind me why Americans deserve such a pathetic excuse for a president.

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.

> the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.

Have you reviewed all of the information contained on said laptop? How can you state an opinion and present it as a fact? Do you have any data or evidence that the data contained within the laptop was compromised or had “lack of substance?”

> Have you reviewed all of the information contained on said laptop?

This is not a productive discussion I think so you're going to have to talk to yourself.

Right you haven’t. You present your opinion as fact as you have throughout this thread. I’d ask that YOU please stop pushing your opinion as fact when it is just your opinion.

To be fair, that's pretty much what Terence Samuels did and he stands behind him.

Right, DARVO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

Haha, that mentions Trump and Kavanaugh... maybe not the reference you were looking for?

The burden of proof justifying posting stolen materials from the laptop belonging to the family member of a politician is not on the person asking if this is in bounds, it is on the person defending obvious muckraking.

The people making the claims about the laptop are the ones that need to provide evidence. To date, nothing of substance has been released from the laptop (which has supposedly been in the possession of the parties making the claims for at least 3 years) that validates any of the claims that have been made about the laptop, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

> To date, nothing of substance has been released from the laptop (which has supposedly been in the possession of the parties making the claims for at least 3 years) that validates any of the claims that have been made about the laptop, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden.

The evidence is there for anyone to view it. Just because the media doesn’t seem interested doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be interested. Just because the media doesn’t report on it doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting story.

Here is evidence from the laptop. Sure we can poke holes and say there was no “chain of custody” but if CoC didn’t matter for an election ballots why does it matter here? Just take an unbiased view of the data. Disregard the source and form you own opinion. Without actually looking at the data anything said is an assumption.

Again I may not like the source but I don’t tend to shoot the messenger.

https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/

That is not evidence. What is the crime that has supposedly been committed and what is the evidence that supports that accusation?

Dumping the contents of a laptop and then shouting conspiracies isn't the same as making a claim and then providing evidence for it.

The media doesn't seem interested because there's nothing there. If there was, Fox News, Breitbart, and all the others would be all over it and pushing it daily.

The media seemed to care when the narrative was 51 IC members says the laptop has “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Hell every network ran with that lie and bullshit. Even twitter was involved and we can see the fallout within the twitter files. Some retracted. Some updated when the laptop and data was deemed “authentic”.

It wasn't a lie, though. The supposed smoking gun wasn't there. That's still a classic earmark of a Russian disinformation operation. You take something real and apply something false to it. The laptop may have been real but that doesn't mean that the supposed crimes and other conspiracies surrounding it were real.

That's how I know it's BS and you can't dispute it. The laptop and data can be authentic all day long. You still can't name a crime that it shows evidence of.

Nope it was definitely a lie. Corporate journalist along with their connections in our intelligence institutions colluded to tarnish and bury the story before an election before it had a chance to be assessed properly. I understand not believing the story to begin with and even believing that there was no incriminating content within the laptop (other than Hunter’s dysfunctional life), but there was definitely a campaign to bury the story so that it would not affect Joe Biden’s chances of being elected. The campaign was to call it Russian disinformation. Do you at least admit this much?

No... not at all. If that was true, then why didn't FOX News, Breitbart, or any of the other right-wing media outlets show evidence of these supposed crimes? Why would FOX News bury the story to not affect Biden's chances of being elected? That doesn't even make any sense.

Why do I care what some discredited right-wing outlet covers? They have no credibility to begin with; I am not going to begin questioning their motives. I'll leave that as an assignment for you if you're so interested

It is a lie.

Do you think those 51 IC member would have called it a Russian Disinformation Operation of the laptop was Don Jr? Well I guess that narrative wouldn’t work, since the Democrats have been pounding the drum that Trump was a Putin “puppet”.

I don’t even need to pontificate how the media would have handled it. They would have dug through all the “evidence” and try to find more “crimes”.

The fact is the IC community and Media colluded to bury the story. There was no interest other than the fringe to actually dig through it.

Hell the FBI has been sitting on the laptop for YEARS. It’s not hard to see how these institutions favor one party over another. Time and time again.

Then why are you unable to answer the question. What is the crime you're accusing him of and where is the evidence from the laptop to support that?

It was not a lie. Unless you can prove that any of these claims are true, it wasn't a lie.

> It was not a lie. Unless you can prove that any of these claims are true, it wasn't a lie.

You can keep downvoting me. It’s okay.

Hunter admitted to his drug addiction. Hunter lied on the background check when purchasing a fire arm. The FBI attempted to strong arm the Gun Store Owner after Hallie took Hunters illegal firearm and dumped in a trash can at a supermarket.

There’s plenty of evidence of Hunter’s drug problems and evidence of illegal cocaine usage (unless cocaine and crack are legal and I missed it) Yet no formal charges.

I wonder why?

President Joe Biden conceded that his son Hunter lied on a government form when he purchased a handgun in October 2018—a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The younger Biden was a crack cocaine user at the time, as recounted in his 2021 memoir Beautiful Things. Yet he answered no to this question on ATF Form 4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/10/12/joe-biden-ful...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/06/...

His father needs to be damaged politically when he is flying his son on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.

"Hold 10 for the big guy" as confirmed by ex business partner Bobulinski.

Not fair, no news organization including Fox thought this was worth publishing.

Hunter Biden's laptop is a non-story unless you really care about penises for some reason. Or Russian disinformation. What exactly was the laptop supposed to prove?

The story was mentioned as an example of NPR editorializing. What is your point?

discussing incentives is understandable (even though your analogy doesn't fit because the government's minor funding isn't what's keeping NPR funded)

suggesting that actual impropriety or improper influence occurs as a result is a conspiracy theory, and we'd need to see actual evidence that it actually happened to avoid dismissing it out of hand

I think if you study this and read up on, for example, the Trump administration's attempts to turn VoA into a compliant propaganda outfit via the administration's control of USAGM, you might conclude that it's actually really hard to manipulate public media in this way. It's not a perfect system but it's pretty well designed.

>- payment from member stations (at least 31% of revenue) who are themselves supported by government funding

I have a hard time understanding this as "state sponsored", much less as evidence that NPR has ceded editorial control. NPR estimates (and InfluenceWatch believes this estimate) that about 4% of their revenue ultimately comes from federal, state and local governments [0], via direct grants to NPR, and via grants to member stations that are in turn paid to NPR. InfluenceWatch, you'll note, is run by the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank which has an axe to grind about NPR's apparent left-wing bias.

This feels a lot like the accusations against Bellingcat that they are state-sponsored/controlled. And I think those accusations are equally specious. Accepting money via indirect grants is not at all the same as accepting payment for invoiced work.

0. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra...

Indeed. Meanwhile, the message has had its intended effect and NPR is now seen as 'tainted' by the people who would do a lot better to listen more to NPR than to various other far more biased news sources. It's the same old playbook, and Musk getting away with this is highly annoying.