I do agree social media companies should be categorized as a publisher - or content providers, but they are not. I think changing section 230 would solve a lot of problems by removing very specific legal protections, which news companies do not receive, and help prevent clear issues such as knowingly promoting false information.
There are those that disagree with me. Problems exist with any solution such as who should judge what should not be allowed and would the counter devolve into an organization that could control information dissemination? A valid point. I think the answer is already out there - a very low standard (or to say another way the high burden of proof required) current news organizations are held to by law, which most seem not to debate is too restrictive, or some line between nothing and that.
There is a lot of academic discourse on this topic and I recommend researching 230 more. It’s a fascinating policy debate with pros and cons on both sides. It was written in 1996, the year the palm pilot and the Pentium 166MHz processor was introduced.
This in itself should be enough to remove media organisation protections.
Your (and Elons) argument has shades of the famous ‘with us or against us’ line. Details matter.
I don't understand what the fuss is all about. This is like a kindergarden full of grown ups.
1) Contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals are tax-deductible, and their pledge drives emphasize that. Those are not included in your "1 percent."
2) A good part of their budget comes from programming fees from affiliate stations, e.g. for the right to run Fresh Air, All Things Considered, Nature, or NOVA. Those stations, in turn, have 501(c)(3) status.
Although NPR receives less than 1% of its direct funding from the federal government, member stations (which pay dues amounting to approximately one third of NPR's revenue), tend to receive far larger portions of their budgets from state governments, and also the US government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
1/3 isn't 100%, but it's also far from insignificant.
My local affiliate breaks it down as 50% member support, 40% corporate/charitable underwriting, 10% state/local govt funding. Maybe other NPR affiliates also get federal grants, but this one doesn’t.
Seems like we’re back to a pretty small fraction of funding for the US State to exert hard control over the content produced.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3551625-the-time-has-co...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/706290/npr-revenue/
So, as a correction it's closer to ~22.5%. Still a not insignificant amount.
It gets 1/3 from member stations, which get “far more” than 1% from various levels of government.
“Far more than 1%” of 1/3 does not mean “1/3”. It’s actually, IIRC, about another 4% of NPRs funding that indirectly comes from government this way, bringing NPR to about 5% government funding, including indirect government funding through its members stations.
Connotation is just as important as denotation when evaluating meaning and accuracy of statements. Engineers love to pretend otherwise - that's probably part of why we're engineers - but that doesn't make them right.
But I believe the label is more important than what some people fear other people would maybe perceive.
This is the foundation of Web 2.0 social media. Open forum enabler, not a publisher.
The BBC & NPR are on pretty thin impartiality ice as state funded supposedly independent voices. Perceptions they are just state propaganda megaphones (which UK citizens are directly taxed if they wish to consume as well as indirectly, with Bill Gates and other globalists also contributing vast sums to 'sponsor' their output) are rising as the quality and bias of their chosen 'reporting' increases and objectivity diminishes.
Emily Surname is one of the few BBC truth speakers
Oh look, a racist dog whistle.
Unless Bill Gates is Jewish (is he?), the context doesn't support this being a dogwhistle in this case.
This seems super far from what twitter is. Please explicitly explain how an AP story is in regards to twitter.
Twitter is a media company, a publisher with an editorial voice that we have to assume is independent from the Saudi government or any government funding the owner's other businesses.
That doesn't mean Twitter shouldn't correctly label publicly funded media.
Maybe it needs a "NewsCorp/Murdoch affiliated" label.
This is not some conspiracy theory. It was very much out in the open.
Even more recently, the house speaker gave Fox preferred access to the Jan 6th video.
Do you have any evidence of this?
> Funding for NPR comes from [...other sources...] and annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Hmm, let's look into said Corporation:
> On February 26, 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR)
> The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.
> The CPB is governed by a nine-member board of directors selected by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate
I mean... If this wasn't "state-affiliated media" at its inception, I'm not entirely sure what is.
NPR show Frontline is a great place to start this education.
Attempting to place NPR and that kind of sentiment in the same conversation as anything other than a great example of how Gov't funds can be provided without such _control_ is disingenuous at best.
NPR != RT
Musk is in way over his head.
"closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position"
"an organization that is officially connected with or controlled by another, usually larger, organization"
dependent: "relying on another for support" (also uses of the words "need" and "requires")
I would agree with parent comment - NPR is not directly, closely affiliated with the state. And isn't in a subordinate position with the state. It has about 12% of its funding from tax dollars, but I think it'd likely exists without that.
I also agree with parent comment they are state funded, however, and anyone who had 12% of their income from a given source for free and no work would be biased and influenced to be friendly towards them. To suggest that the people who work at and run NPR are free from bias and influence is demonstrably not true, and so it also follows we can't assume they would approach their funding without bias.
Show us some stories they've run that the Biden administration and/or the DNC actively hates. For bonus points, show that NPR stood by their story when said people condemned them.
For even more bonus points, assuming you manage that: compare the number of those stories to the number on the other side of the political spectrum.
because there are things that everyone who follows the news knows, and pretending ignorance and demanding a citation is just "go do some homework."
Then you should do so. Especially Fresh Air, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!, Car Talk (although, sadly that's just an archive -- no new shows), Story Corps[0] and a whole bunch of others that have exactly zero to do with anything political.
I wanted to add Forum as well, but since it's from KQED[1] I'm sure some folks around here will call it the propaganda arm of the People's Republic of California. <eye-roll>.
And Marketplace, On Point, RadioLab, Science Friday and a bunch of others from WBUR[2]. And WNYC[3] and WAMU[4] also have a number of shows that never even mention the dysfunction in the US political system.
That said, there are many NPR (and member station) shows that actually report the news of the day and cover political topics -- regardless of party or point of view.
Okay, it's definitely not Breitbart, Zerohedge or Alex Jones, but it's certainly not a communist organization. Rather, it's center-right, just like most of the US.
Regardless, there's lots of interesting and fun stuff, especially Fresh Air. I remember being heartbroken fifteen years ago or so to find out that Terry Gross[5] was not only past childbearing age, but gay as well. Because she's so amazing, I often fantasized about having kids with her. Seriously.
[0] https://prod-www-origin.npr.org/programs/
[2] https://www.wbur.org/radio
A very recent episode featured a comedic rant about Gov. DeSantis. It called the Parental Rights Bill "Don't Say Gay" and joked about how he was attacking the Disney characters. Naturally all good NPR listeners would laugh about that.
Fresh Air: How many guests has she had on who might also appear on FoxNews? Versus MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or WaPo.
I'll tell you why they do that: if they presented a non-querulous story about the Hunter Biden laptop, their contributors would angrily demand to know why they're presenting "Fox News talking points."
Yup. And I bet it was hilarious! They send up everyone. No particular political affiliation required. It's a comedy "game" show.
And when they skewered Obama and Clinton and Kerry and Biden and Harris and Pritzker (WWDTM is based in Chicago) and countless other people you disagree with as well as many, many you do agree with including Ron deSantis[0].
>Fresh Air: How many guests has she had on who might also appear on FoxNews? Versus MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or WaPo.
Well, since Fresh Air is almost all interviews with novelists, musicians, actors and other interesting cultural stuff, I suppose that most of the folks who Watch Fox News, if they like fiction, music, movies and theater would love to hear interviews with those folks.
And those who are interviewed on Fresh Air are usually flogging their new book/album/movie/art installation/whatever, so I'd imagine most of them would appear on any media outlet that would have them.
>if they presented a non-querulous story about the Hunter Biden laptop,
You've clearly never listened to Fresh Air, because the wouldn't do a Hunter Biden laptop story, or a Jared Kushner (yes, I love the UAE's money more than I love Ivanka, and I love Ivanka a lot!) story either.
Because it's not a political show, it's a show about culture (music, fiction, movies, etc.) and the creative people who generate it.
As I pointed out, not everything is about a bunch of gasbags bloviating about how terrible the other guy is. That shit is really tired. And has been for quite some time.
Are you an American? If so, you're my fellow citizen and potential collaborator in helping to solve the myriad issues we have here. Not my adversary or my enemy. But a fellow human and potential friend -- even if (and I have no idea one way another) we don't share the same political beliefs.
the truth is that just about all Americans agree on many, many more things than they disagree.
I find it reductive and insulting to have to justify liking non-political stuff to folks who insist that everything they don't like (and that goes for all those afflicted with Hunter Thompson's disease[1], not any particular viewpoint, whether I agree with their policy ideas or not):
But we will be doing what he wants us to do, I think, if we consider his
exterior a sort of Dorian Gray facade. Inwardly, he is being eaten alive by
tinhorn politicians.
The disease is fatal. There is no known cure. The most we can do for the poor
devil, it seems to me, is to name his disease in his honor. From this moment
on, let all those who feel that Americans can be as easily led to beauty as
to ugliness, to truth as to public relations, to joy as to bitterness, be
said to be suffering from Hunter Thompson’s disease.
> And those who are interviewed on Fresh Air are usually flogging their new book/album/movie/art installation/whatever, so I'd imagine most of them would appear on any media outlet that would have them.
So I guess your answer is "none" then?
> You've clearly never listened to Fresh Air, because the wouldn't do a Hunter Biden laptop story, or a Jared Kushner (yes, I love the UAE's money more than I love Ivanka, and I love Ivanka a lot!) story either.
"They" is NPR here, not Fresh Air (which I do listen to). NPR News or All Things Considered is "they." Show me where that laptop story was covered anywhere on NPR or PBS.
I hosted a guy at Google, Hugh Sinclair, who talks about the reality of microfinance, having spend 10 years in the field doing it. He was turned down for Fresh Air.
> As I pointed out, not everything is about a bunch of gasbags bloviating about how terrible the other guy is. That shit is really tired. And has been for quite some time.
Everything on NPR is, unfortunately, unless it's about the arts. And even there, it's heavily over-weighted to "arts by under-represented people."
> when they skewered Obama and Clinton and Kerry and Biden and Harris and Pritzker
when was that, exactly?
> most of the folks who Watch Fox News
Oh, the condescension there.
> it's divisive, unpleasant and really, really tired. Please stop.
Fortunately, if you only listen to NPR, you'll never have to hear it.
Okay. now you're moving the goalposts. All Things Considered is not Fresh Air.
As such, I'm done. Fuck off jerk
Call it "irrelevant" - always a good tactic.
If it is not the case, then they are not biased because government funded. They may be politically biased for other reason, but it does not matter if they are government funded or not, and it is stupid to give them a label "government funded" to warn about bias if "government funded" has nothing to do with this bias. Especially because it means that non-government-funded organization can be as biased but not have any label.
Maybe the first part of that will happen someday. It hasn't yet. In fact, large parts of the civil service are permanently one party and do not change when the other party takes charge (as, indeed, the Civil Service reforms of the 19th Century set out to insure). Only about 4,000 jobs are politically appointed, according to Wikipedia.
So, no, you haven't gotten that out of the way.
What you are saying is that there is a group of interest that are independent of the government, and that has an influence because they are giving money. Why should we had a label when this group of interest is "the executive agencies", but not when it is "the investors of Wall Street", the "mass media conservative groups", the "christian lobby", ...?
(I don't pretend it's the case. I think people who really believe that the evil executive agencies impose their agenda are idiot who are not able to mentally comprehend that maybe NPR news are biased because their redaction is politically biased, with or without the existence of executive agencies)
(also, the reasoning on 4'000 jobs politically appointed is very weak: while there are way more than 4'000 jobs in the executive agencies, the very very very majority of these jobs have ZERO decision power, and the position of power in these agencies are the one politically appointed. If these executive agencies are sending memos to bias the media, or even renegotiating the contracts or the refunding based on what the media have published, it is with the support of the politically appointed board of directors)
That's not really true. While "brevity" may be "the soul of wit[0]," making a point may require elucidation, since details actually matter.
And short declaratives (like the one I'm replying to) elide most, if not all, nuance.
If you reduce everything to a soundbite (or a tweet, for that matter), you miss out on the nuance and complexity of most things.
Just sayin'.
The Twitter Files show government agencies directly pressuring Twitter to cover or suppress stories. They did this despite a Republican president being in power.
So yes, that is "the state itself [is] executing editorial control." You are just spinning words if you say, "ok, yeah, they do it, but it's not consistent."
Criticism of the DNC specifically (and Biden): https://www.npr.org/2022/12/08/1141499760/concerns-arise-ove...
“Centerpiece of foreign policy” is not a well defined term, but we can try to evaluate their coverage anyway- https://www.google.com/search?q=biden+centerpiece+of+foreign...
Out of the first 9 articles, 4 have would I would call a critical slant. And Bob’s your uncle.
Really? That's clear to you? How much coverage did they give to the Hunter Biden laptop? How about the Twitter Files? How about Biden's senility?
Yemen is a very poor & muddled example. You have Iran & Saudi mixed up there.
When NPR runs their "ADM Supermarket to the World" spots, that is telling you who is really funding them and who to worry about exerting editorial control.
In fact there are still some families in Canada with noble titles, hearldry, etc., who are indeed affiliated with the Crown.
Is the criteria money? coercion? backdoor-deals? bias?
As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money.
Control/Coercion seem more important, especially since Twitter has a separate category for media with government funding. (cf https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia... for both)
Twitter: “Financial Resource” Considering we do have a law around funding NPR and the company would be impacted of that funding went away, personally I see it as appropriate.
However, I also see it appropriate that Fox News and Washington Post get the same tag. (party political pressures)
Does the Whitehouse (in general) use press access passes as bartering chip, yes of course!
With that said, “state-affiliated” depends on criteria. Whether it’s agreed upon or not, Twitter set their criteria. Other outlets set their criteria as well…on news, politics, health, and illicit.
A large part of their funding comes from congress -> corporation for public broadcasting -> local NPR affiliates -> NPR.
It is indirect funding, yes, but they are very much funded by the US government.
"it was changed before this piece and before NPR decided to leave. Twitter acknowledged that label was incorrect and changed it. Then NPR had a temper tantrum and left and this piece implied they left over that label. It’s misleading at best"
Quoting https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
> On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.
In reality government funding accounts for much more than 1% of NPR's budget.
NPR itself [1] says that figure is 13 percent, counting state governments. In either case, I am comfortable that NPR is editorially independent but also comfortable saying that without government money, it's a podcast network.
The power of the purse is the power to pull strings even if that power is not currently being used, and even if the marionette would scream really loudly if the strings were pulled. I don't think "state-affiliated" was a fair label. "Government-funded" was, and NPR is damaging its credibility more than Twitter could by pitching a fit over it.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/12/1169269161/npr-leaves-twitter...
> It's a distraction.
Categorizing an argument doesn't provide justification for that categorization.
Ah, yes, the old "if I misrepresent the issue and assign a negative emotion to it, other people will see it as bad" trope. That's fun.
Do you have any evidence they find the contributions "embarrassing" as opposed to finding the label an intentionally-misleading dog whistle? Or is that not something that occurred to you?
Twitter is a publisher, though (because of Section 230) they are not liable as a publisher for most of what they publish under US law.
Making NPR display its funding sources for all to see is a good thing (although "state-affiliated" was not the right label). Not making other high profile accounts do the same is pure hypocrisy.
If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding. Additionally, if there's no influence/bias, then why does it matter that their funding is disclosed to the reader?