I was asking your criteria.

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)

I was responding to the "As per Twitter’s criteria, it’s money." part. Fox and WP as state-affiliated seems weird to me: being close to a party line is not necessarily the same as state-affiliation. (Given we're talking a democracy and not a one-party state - I don't think you could make that distinction in e.g. China due to how interconnected it is there)

Parties absolutely have access to these outlets. We all have to be blind to think that if Biden request WP to write something positive, they wouldn’t? Same with Fox and Trump. Does the govt use influence to persuade news outlets? Of course they do. Any major news outlet that says they are 100% independent and doesn’t have some percentage of outside influence is outright lying.

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.

Correction: Twitter lists NPR as government-funded media, not state affiliated media [0]

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/NPR

It was changed to that. Originally the label was as given in the headline: "state-affiliated media".

Yeah but 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