NPR (part of PRI) departs Twitter in protest of Elon's wrongful labelling as "government funded media"

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

41489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 14

#1  Edited By nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 41489 Posts

A more clearer statement from their website.

NPR will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds, becoming the first major news organization to go silent on the social media platform. In explaining its decision, NPR cited Twitter's decision to first label the network "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries.

The decision by Twitter last week took the public radio network off guard. When queried by NPR tech reporter Bobby Allyn, Twitter owner Elon Musk asked how NPR functioned. Musk allowed that he might have gotten it wrong.

Twitter then revised its label on NPR's account to "government-funded media." The news organization says that is inaccurate and misleading, given that NPR is a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence. It receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

By going silent on Twitter, NPR's chief executive says the network is protecting its credibility and its ability to produce journalism without "a shadow of negativity."

"The downside, whatever the downside, doesn't change that fact," NPR CEO John Lansing said in an interview. "I would never have our content go anywhere that would risk our credibility."

In a BBC interview posted online Wednesday, Musk suggested he may further change the label to "publicly funded." His words did not sway NPR's decision makers. Even if Twitter were to drop the designation altogether, Lansing says the network will not immediately return to the platform.

"At this point I have lost my faith in the decision-making at Twitter," he says. "I would need some time to understand whether Twitter can be trusted again."

NPR's Allyn emailed Musk on Wednesday morning asking for "your reaction" to the news organization quitting Twitter.

Initially, Musk didn't respond, but a couple of hours later Musk tweeted out Allyn's email followed with a tweet saying "Defund @NPR." His followers quickly piled on.

NPR is instituting a "two-week grace period" so the staff who run the Twitter accounts can revise their social-media strategies. Lansing says individual NPR journalists and staffers can decide for themselves whether to continue using Twitter.

In an email to staff explaining the decision, Lansing wrote, "It would be a disservice to the serious work you all do here to continue to share it on a platform that is associating the federal charter for public media with an abandoning of editorial independence or standards."

For years, many journalists considered Twitter critical to monitoring news developments, to connect with people at major events and with authoritative sources, and to share their coverage. Musk's often hastily announced policy changes have undermined that. Lansing says that degradation in the culture of Twitter — already often awash in abusive content — contributed to NPR's decision to pull back.

Musk proves conciliatory and erratic in BBC interview

PBS, which also receives money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the BBC, which is funded by a uniform license fee charged to British television viewers, are among those whose Twitter accounts were given the same designation.

In the new interview with the BBC's James Clayton, Musk almost appeared to be seeking a compromise with the journalist. He said Twitter would adjust its labels for the British public broadcaster to "publicly funded."

"We're trying to be accurate," Musk said. "I actually do have a lot of respect for the BBC." He said the interview offered him a chance to "get some feedback on what we should be doing different."

When questioned by Clayton, Musk replied that the "publicly funded" label would apply to NPR as well. The change was not made before NPR's decision on Wednesday morning, however.

The BBC exchange showed Musk as alternately conciliatory and erratic. He also said that he's sleeping on a couch at work, that he followed through on his promise to purchase Twitter only because a judge forced him to, and that he should stop tweeting after 3 a.m.

"The point is the independence," NPR leader says

Lansing says Musk is focusing attention on the wrong element of the equation.

"The whole point isn't whether or not we're government funded," Lansing says. "Even if we were government funded, which we're not, the point is the independence, because all journalism has revenue of some sort."

NPR's board is appointed without any government influence. And the network has at times tangled with both Democratic and Republican administrations. For example, NPR joined with other media organizations to press the Obama administration for access to closed hearings involving detainees held by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay. And "All Things Considered" host Mary Louise Kelly stood her ground in questioning then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over then-President Donald Trump's actions in Ukraine despite being berated by Pompeo.

Most of NPR's funding comes from corporate and individual supporters and grants. It also receives significant programming fees from member stations. Those stations, in turn, receive about 13 percent of their funds from the CPB and other state and federal government sources.

It isn't clear that a withdrawal from Twitter will materially affect NPR's ability to reach an online audience. NPR's primary Twitter account has 8.8 million followers — more than a million more than follow the network on Facebook. Yet Facebook is a much bigger platform, and NPR's Facebook posts often are far more likely to spur engagement or click-throughs to NPR's own website. NPR Music has almost 10 times more followers on YouTube than it does on Twitter, and the video platform serves as one of the primary conduits for its popular Tiny Desk Series.

Musk uses Twitter to question the legitimacy of media outlets

NPR's decision follows a week of public acrimony, as Musk has used his platform to cast doubt on the legitimacy of major news organizations.

The billionaire, who bought Twitter in October, previously announced he would remove check marks from the accounts of legacy news organizations unless the outlets paid for them. The coveted marks once meant Twitter had verified the authenticity of an account belonging to a news organization, government or public figure. Now, they can be bought through a monthly subscription.

Musk also singled out The New York Times earlier this month, removing its check mark and calling its reporting "propaganda." Twitter's communications shop now simply responds to reporters' emails with poop emojis.

At least three public radio stations preceded NPR to the exits at Twitter: Member stations KCRW in Santa Monica, Calif., WESA in Pittsburgh and WEKU, which serves central and eastern Kentucky. (After NPR said that it was leaving Twitter on Wednesday, Boston-based WBUR announced that it, too, would stop posting on the platform "in solidarity with NPR," according to a statement from its CEO, Margaret Low.)

Fears that Twitter label could endanger journalists

Journalism and freedom-of-speech groups have condemned Twitter's labels, including PEN, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

"NPR receives public funding, but is not state-controlled, meaning Twitter's listing could pose risks for journalists reporting from areas where suggestions of government affiliation have negative connotations," CPJ's Carlos Martínez de la Serna said in a statement urging Twitter to revisit its decision.

Twitter's own guidelines previously said, "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

That language has now been removed. In addition to NPR and the BBC, Twitter recently labeled the U.S. broadcaster Voice of America as government-funded media. Voice of America is part of the federal U.S. Agency for Global Media. But its editorial independence from government officials — at times hard won — is enshrined by law.

"The label 'government funded' is potentially misleading and could be construed as also 'government-controlled' – which VOA is most certainly not," VOA spokesperson Bridget Serchak said in a statement to NPR.

Serchak says VOA will continue to raise the distinction in talks with Twitter as the label "causes unwarranted and unjustified concern about the accuracy and objectivity of [its] news coverage."

At Elon Musk's Twitter, unpredictability is the norm

Like so many policy decisions at the social network of late, Musk applied the label to NPR's Twitter account abruptly. It's still not clear why he became so animated about the issue.

In his exchanges with NPR reporter Allyn, Musk said he was relying on a Wikipedia page dedicated to "publicly funded broadcasters" to determine which accounts should receive the label.

When pressed for how he justifies the disclaimer considering NPR receives meager funding from the government and has complete editorial independence, Musk veered into conspiratorial territory.

"If you really think that the government has no influence on the entity they're funding then you've been marinating in the Kool-Aid for too long," Musk wrote to Allyn.

Musk's push to label the network even ran afoul of the site's own rules. A former Twitter executive who was involved in crafting the guidelines told NPR that the deciding factor in whether to issue the designation was whether an outlet had editorial freedom. The labels, the former executive said, were intended to give users context that a tweet they are seeing may be propaganda.

The messy deliberations on display in Musk's email exchanges over labeling NPR's account are in line with his impulsive leadership style. His changes to the platform often are announced by tweet, with sudden reversals not uncommon, or promised changes never coming to fruition. Because Musk relishes troll-like behavior, there is always a possibility that his pronouncements turn out to be jokes. He has announced that the effective date for the change in the check mark verification system is April 20. The date is an inside joke among people who smoke or consume marijuana.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Acting Chief Business Editor Emily Kopp, Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James and Business Editor Lisa Lambert. NPR's Bobby Allyn, Mary Yang and Dara Kerr contributed to this story. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Right when you think Twitter under Elon couldn't get any worse. Not without flaws, NPR has been important to journalism. And like PBS, most of their funds come from the public donations and sponsors, the government contribution is very, VERY minimal.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23807 Posts

Twitter is in absolute shambles. I seriously can't believe there were people who didn't see just what a disaster Elon Musk's takeover would be.

And now the company is being sued by Germany for up to 30 billion over its failure to remove anti-semitic comments. This is for more than what the company is worth.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

Musk is running Twitter into the ground.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@Maroxad: So far he's lit $24 billion on fire. Let's see how low it can go.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#5  Edited By SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

Love the decision giving NPR and BBC that label. Rightfully so, good on Elon.

government-funded media

I've been saying this, always found it hypocritical we label it from other countries and not our own.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

@sargentd: Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors & annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. US government funding accounts for less than 1% of its budget.

BBC is publicly funded by fees that are charged British citizens.

So you'd be wrong on that.

NPR is also independent and not under government control. Like what happens in the other countries you're so concerned about.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#7 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

@sargentd: Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors & annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. US government funding accounts for less than 1% of its budget.

government funded means what it says, i dont care if its 1%. If they got funding from the government, the label fits.

government-funded media

dont want the label, stop taking money from the government

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#8 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

Tim Bald broke it down quite well. I'm impressed. Great listen 👍

Loading Video...

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

PBS has followed suit.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

41489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 14

#10 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 41489 Posts

@mattbbpl: Figured...

Avatar image for appariti0n
appariti0n

5011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 appariti0n
Member since 2009 • 5011 Posts

NPR: "I'm taking my ball and going home!"

I hope CBC is next. It receives the bulk of it's funding from federal taxpayer money in Canada.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@sargentd said:

Love the decision giving NPR and BBC that label. Rightfully so, good on Elon.

government-funded media

I've been saying this, always found it hypocritical we label it from other countries and not our own.

This has been fact checked and is highly mis-leading

Fact Check Team: What's behind Twitter's new designation for NPR? | KATV

WASHINGTON (TND) — Last week, Twitter labeled NPR as “state-affiliated media” but has since changed the controversial description to “government funded.” The move followed complaints from NPR and others that the designation was an effort by Elon Musk to belittle the news organization — its president even said it was “unacceptable for Twitter” to label the organization that way.

Last week, Twitter labeled NPR as “state-affiliated media” but has since changed the controversial description to “government funded.” (TND)

The label was controversial because they shared it with outlets like Russia’s state-owned news agency, Tass, and China’s New China News Agency.

Twitter has been updating its guidelines over the last few days and they now say the “government-funded” label goes to media outlets that receive some or all funding from the government.

Musk says this designation is important because readers need to be aware of potential bias.

NPR does receive financial resources from the government but those funds make up less than 1% of their annual operating budget, according to the outlet. In fact, according to a 2020 report, the outlet only got 0.6% of its money from the government.

There are other outlets that have received the “government-funded” label, including PBS, BBC and Voice of America.

Since Elon Musk took control of the platform, it has seen several changes, including its number of users.

You don't know what you're ever talking about.

@sargentd said:

Great listen 👍

No it's not. It never is.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

@sargentd said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@sargentd: Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors & annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. US government funding accounts for less than 1% of its budget.

government funded means what it says, i dont care if its 1%. If they got funding from the government, the label fits.

government-funded media

dont want the label, stop taking money from the government

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#14 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58159 Posts

@sargentd said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@sargentd: Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors & annual grants from the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. US government funding accounts for less than 1% of its budget.

government funded means what it says, i dont care if its 1%. If they got funding from the government, the label fits.

government-funded media

dont want the label, stop taking money from the government

It doesn't fit when other outlets that are labeled as such are literally state-run, i.e. Chinese and Russian propaganda.

It's a clear mislabel, and Twitter should retract, if not apologize, for their error.

Avatar image for appariti0n
appariti0n

5011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 appariti0n
Member since 2009 • 5011 Posts

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

Avatar image for Planeforger
Planeforger

19550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 Planeforger
Member since 2004 • 19550 Posts

@sargentd said:

government funded means what it says, i dont care if its 1%. If they got funding from the government, the label fits.

government-funded media

dont want the label, stop taking money from the government

So you don't trust independent news outlets that rely on government funding (including those that are required by law to be politically-neutral), but you do trust random YouTube news outlets that are funded by commercial interests and private donations?

See, I find that really weird.

Here in Australia, the most trustworthy news outlets ate the government-funded independent ones, because they get in trouble whenever they appear to be influenced by commercial interests or political favouritism. So you know that whenever they do report on a political scandal, it will have journalistic integrity, and be well-researched, and be on the public interest, and be balanced, and have a million layers of justification and legal reasoning behind it it, because shows will lose funding and people will lose jobs if they just run ads or political hit pieces.

Meanwhile, most of the commercial news networks here are beholden to a political party and/or their corporate sponsors - so everything they say is one-sided garbage.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23807 Posts

@sargentd A lot of enterprises are in some way subsidized by the government.

Enterprises, with some minor government funding, ironically enough end up being more neutral, since they aren't funded by a political party. Which turns them into propaganda mouthpieces. Less likely to engage in shock jockery too.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts

@sargentd said:

Love the decision giving NPR and BBC that label. Rightfully so, good on Elon.

government-funded media

I've been saying this, always found it hypocritical we label it from other countries and not our own.

lol this tracks.

don't ever want to break character.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#19 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

Also how much funding comes from state government.

NPR claims it is principally funded by its member stations...

Where does the majority of the funding come from.. to fund the member stations?

Do the member stations get funding from the state? Do they get funding from the Universities? (which are funded by the government)?

NPR was literally created by an act of Congress.

NPR is a non profit functioning on grants from government funded institutions.

ttps://cpb.org/faq

NPR is an independent nonprofit membership organization of separately licensed and operated public radio stations across the United States. NPR produces and distributes news, information, and cultural programming across broadcast and digital platforms. NPR has more than 260 member stations that, as independent entities, own and operate about 1,000 stations nationwide. NPR is principally funded by member stations, distribution services, underwriting and institutional grants and individual contributions.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#20 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

NPR then: Outraged Trump is trying to defund them.

NPR now: Outraged that they are being labeled as government funded.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#21 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

Interesting timeline, great read 👍

https://firstamendmentwatch.org/deep-dive/the-chilling-effect-of-public-broadcasting-funding-cuts/

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

9384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#23 pyro1245
Member since 2003 • 9384 Posts

Twitter is becoming less and less of a 'town square' by the day. Elon is a clown.

Avatar image for DigitalNoodle
DigitalNoodle

321

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 DigitalNoodle
Member since 2003 • 321 Posts

@pyro1245: Elon is turning it into 4chan 2.0.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58159 Posts
@sargentd said:
@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

...

Dude that applies to everything.

Is a tax writeoff "indirectly" funded by the government? Sure, probably. But what corporation or multimillion-dollar entity doesn't do that? Are these self-made billionaires we worship indirectly funded by the government? Is Twitter? Spacex? Trump?

Going by your logic, yes, they are.

So with that said, now we have to speak in relative terms. Relative to other outlets and organizations, is NPR funded by the government? Relatively speaking, no, they aren't.

But based on what Twitter previous classified as "directly" funded, they more or less equate it to "state owned" and that is not fair. NPR is independent of the government while many Russian and Chinese outlets are not.

Avatar image for InEMplease
InEMplease

7461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By InEMplease
Member since 2009 • 7461 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:
@sargentd said:
@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

...

Dude that applies to everything.

Is a tax writeoff "indirectly" funded by the government? Sure, probably. But what corporation or multimillion-dollar entity doesn't do that? Are these self-made billionaires we worship indirectly funded by the government? Is Twitter? Spacex? Trump?

Going by your logic, yes, they are.

So with that said, now we have to speak in relative terms. Relative to other outlets and organizations, is NPR funded by the government? Relatively speaking, no, they aren't.

But based on what Twitter previous classified as "directly" funded, they more or less equate it to "state owned" and that is not fair. NPR is independent of the government while many Russian and Chinese outlets are not.

Yes. But why pay attention to facts and reality, when we can ignore them and peddle nonsense to the easily corruptible masses, to be numbingly and unquestionably consumed, thus turning them into easily manipulated trolls?

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#27 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58159 Posts

@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

I think they need to establish a certain amount as a minimum. Simply saying "any" amount counts as government funding is kind of lame, and as @sargentd more or less pointed out (unintentionally), the entire world is ultimately funded by the government to one degree or another.

Got a tax refund? Government funded. Incentivized to install solar? Government funded.

I think it's an attempt to apply a more technically correct (not really) label of "left-leaning media bias" because they can accuse it of being the Biden's NPR and they would be technically correct, but not to a degree that really counts for anything. It's like paying someone a dollar for a house for sale and then saying you're now part owner. It doesn't work that way.

It should also be noted that NPR is non-profit and thus different tax rules apply to them as well and so forth. I suppose that makes them socialist as well 🤣

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:
@sargentd said:
@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

...

Dude that applies to everything.

Is a tax writeoff "indirectly" funded by the government? Sure, probably. But what corporation or multimillion-dollar entity doesn't do that? Are these self-made billionaires we worship indirectly funded by the government? Is Twitter? Spacex? Trump?

Going by your logic, yes, they are.

So with that said, now we have to speak in relative terms. Relative to other outlets and organizations, is NPR funded by the government? Relatively speaking, no, they aren't.

But based on what Twitter previous classified as "directly" funded, they more or less equate it to "state owned" and that is not fair. NPR is independent of the government while many Russian and Chinese outlets are not.

guys. i need to disclose. my private sector employer has contracts with the federal government. some percentage of their revenue is taxpayer money. some percentage therefore of my salary is taxpayer money.


my thoughts and opinions here are federally funded.

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#29 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3723 Posts

I think not gets less than 1% of its money from federal grants. That big, scary pbs might be different.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@comp_atkins said:
@mrbojangles25 said:
@sargentd said:
@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

...

Dude that applies to everything.

Is a tax writeoff "indirectly" funded by the government? Sure, probably. But what corporation or multimillion-dollar entity doesn't do that? Are these self-made billionaires we worship indirectly funded by the government? Is Twitter? Spacex? Trump?

Going by your logic, yes, they are.

So with that said, now we have to speak in relative terms. Relative to other outlets and organizations, is NPR funded by the government? Relatively speaking, no, they aren't.

But based on what Twitter previous classified as "directly" funded, they more or less equate it to "state owned" and that is not fair. NPR is independent of the government while many Russian and Chinese outlets are not.

guys. i need to disclose. my private sector employer has contracts with the federal government. some percentage of their revenue is taxpayer money. some percentage therefore of my salary is taxpayer money.

my thoughts and opinions here are federally funded.

Dude.. the government is funded by me. So... are your thoughts funded by me then? D=

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#31 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts

@horgen said:
@comp_atkins said:
@mrbojangles25 said:
@sargentd said:
@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

...

Dude that applies to everything.

Is a tax writeoff "indirectly" funded by the government? Sure, probably. But what corporation or multimillion-dollar entity doesn't do that? Are these self-made billionaires we worship indirectly funded by the government? Is Twitter? Spacex? Trump?

Going by your logic, yes, they are.

So with that said, now we have to speak in relative terms. Relative to other outlets and organizations, is NPR funded by the government? Relatively speaking, no, they aren't.

But based on what Twitter previous classified as "directly" funded, they more or less equate it to "state owned" and that is not fair. NPR is independent of the government while many Russian and Chinese outlets are not.

guys. i need to disclose. my private sector employer has contracts with the federal government. some percentage of their revenue is taxpayer money. some percentage therefore of my salary is taxpayer money.

my thoughts and opinions here are federally funded.

Dude.. the government is funded by me. So... are your thoughts funded by me then? D=

your tax dollars pay for some of the food i eat

the food i eat gives my brain energy to formulate thoughts

my thoughts are funded by your tax dollars

keep em coming!

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#32  Edited By SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

@comp_atkins: if NPR and all of its affiliated member stations weren't allowed to take state and federal grants I'm willing to bet they would die.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#33  Edited By SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

How they going to claim

"no we aren't government funded! NPR only gets 1% directly from the Federal government"

"We get all of our money from our member stations!!! Who are funded by the government!!"

Goofy as hell.

The label is 100% accurate

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

@sargentd said:

@comp_atkins: if NPR and all of its affiliated member stations weren't allowed to take state and federal grants I'm willing to bet they would die.

NPR gets less than 1% so I doubt it.

Avatar image for Skarwolf
Skarwolf

2718

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#35 Skarwolf
Member since 2006 • 2718 Posts

How come nobody was crying in the previous years when Twitter was allowed to post constant political bias favouring the left while censoring the right lol. You people are hilarious its truly pathetic how indoctrinated you are.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

@Skarwolf said:

How come nobody was crying in the previous years when Twitter was allowed to post constant political bias favouring the left while censoring the right lol. You people are hilarious its truly pathetic how indoctrinated you are.

Only time censorship happened was when disinformation happened. They let trump tweet for 4 years when he was doing that and spreading hate. Spare us the victim complex.

Avatar image for Skarwolf
Skarwolf

2718

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#37 Skarwolf
Member since 2006 • 2718 Posts

@LJS9502_basic: show what he posted that was verified as hate. Just because you have orange man bad derangement syndrome doesn’t make everything the wanker says hateful.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#38 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58159 Posts

@horgen said:
@comp_atkins said:
@mrbojangles25 said:
@sargentd said:
@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

its important to pay attention how they play with the language when talking about this. For example "Less than 1% comes directly from the federal government".

Ok.. so how much money comes indirectly from the federal government?

...

Dude that applies to everything.

Is a tax writeoff "indirectly" funded by the government? Sure, probably. But what corporation or multimillion-dollar entity doesn't do that? Are these self-made billionaires we worship indirectly funded by the government? Is Twitter? Spacex? Trump?

Going by your logic, yes, they are.

So with that said, now we have to speak in relative terms. Relative to other outlets and organizations, is NPR funded by the government? Relatively speaking, no, they aren't.

But based on what Twitter previous classified as "directly" funded, they more or less equate it to "state owned" and that is not fair. NPR is independent of the government while many Russian and Chinese outlets are not.

guys. i need to disclose. my private sector employer has contracts with the federal government. some percentage of their revenue is taxpayer money. some percentage therefore of my salary is taxpayer money.

my thoughts and opinions here are federally funded.

Dude.. the government is funded by me. So... are your thoughts funded by me then? D=

And you mod Gamespot. Is Gamespot federally funded then? NSA I DIDN"T MEAN HALF THE SHIT I"VE SAID ON HERE!

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Skarwolf said:

How come nobody was crying in the previous years when Twitter was allowed to post constant political bias favouring the left while censoring the right lol. You people are hilarious its truly pathetic how indoctrinated you are.

Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets | Twitter | The Guardian

Twitter has admitted it amplifies more tweets from rightwing politicians and news outlets than content from leftwing sources.

The research found that in six out of seven countries, apart from Germany, tweets from rightwing politicians received more amplification from the algorithm than those from the left; right-leaning news organisations were more amplified than those on the left; and generally politicians’ tweets were more amplified by an algorithmic timeline than by the chronological timeline.

Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter | PNAS

With the exception of Germany, we find a statistically significant difference favoring the political right wing. This effect is strongest in Canada (Liberals 43% vs. Conservatives 167%) and the United Kingdom (Labor 112% vs. Conservatives 176%). In both countries, the prime ministers and members of the government are also members of the Parliament and are thus included in our analysis. We, therefore, recomputed the amplification statistics after excluding top government officials. Our findings, shown inSI Appendix, Fig. S2, remained qualitatively similar

The conservative posters in this section are somehow always wrong lol.

Avatar image for Skarwolf
Skarwolf

2718

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#40 Skarwolf
Member since 2006 • 2718 Posts

@zaryia: the fascist left users are somehow always wrong. When you just put on horse blinders and cherry pick articles that fit your narrative its confirmation bias.

Its unfortunate that many of you lack the ability or intelligence to comprehend this. That however is a sign of the times. Unemployable deplorables perpetually aggrieved never happy.

Say anything they don’t like its point back the other way, cry to mods. Rather pointless to attempt rational discussion and kind of insulting to be honest. Like arguing with 6 year old you are quite frankly lacking in any substance.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

15541

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#41 Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 15541 Posts

Maybe we should start also flagging any companies that received PPP loans and other bailouts.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@Skarwolf said:

@zaryia: the fascist left users are somehow always wrong.

You have to explain how fact checking your false statement with a peer reviewed study is "fascist". Or wrong.

@Skarwolf said:

and cherry pick articles that fit your narrative its confirmation bias.

I used a study. Got counter studies? In fact here is another,

PsyArXiv Preprints | Trade-offs between reducing misinformation and politically-balanced enforcement on social media

That's two now. Surely if I'm cherry picking you will provide the studies saying the opposite.

@Skarwolf said:

Its unfortunate that many of you lack the ability or intelligence to comprehend this.

I provided citation showing you were objectively wrong and all you can do is spam fictional ad-hominems.

@Skarwolf said:

Unemployable deplorables perpetually aggrieved never happy.

I'm not unemployed. All I did was fact check you since you were wrong.

Why are you doing this.

@Skarwolf said:

Say anything they don’t like its point back the other way, cry to mods.

I didn't cry to the mods. I provided two links showing your post was false and that you were wrong.

@Skarwolf said:

Rather pointless to attempt rational discussion and kind of insulting to be honest. Like arguing with 6 year old you are quite frankly lacking in any substance.

Me proving your statement wrong, directly through a study, is insulting you and not rational and something a six year old would do?

This is one of the most bizarre debate tactics I have ever seen here after someone got proven wrong. Randomly call me unemployed and a six year old because of refuting your false statement? Huh?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

17637

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#43 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 17637 Posts

Remarkable to watch Twitter’s destruction in slow-mo.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

7977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#44 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 7977 Posts

@appariti0n said:

@mrbojangles25: I do kind of agree here. If NPR is only 1% funded by government, I mean, I guess the "government funded" isn't totally inaccurate. Just puzzled why CBC isn't labelled the same, when they get around 70% of their funding from the federal government.

Maybe a "this news source gets a portion of their funding from the federal government" label for NPR would be more appropriate.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trudeau-rival-clash-over-twitter-labeling-cbc-government-funded-2023-04-17/

Thought of you when finding this out.

CBC rage quit lol

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16517

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16517 Posts

@nintendoboy16: lol Elon musk. This guy is an idiot.

Avatar image for kathaariancode
KathaarianCode

3352

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#46 KathaarianCode
Member since 2022 • 3352 Posts

Is Elon flagging himself as partially funded by the US government too?

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
WitIsWisdom

9477

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#47 WitIsWisdom
Member since 2007 • 9477 Posts

Lmfao... cry my a river. The truth hurts huh?

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

21607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 21607 Posts
@WitIsWisdom said:

The truth hurts huh?

Not completely. The original label was false,

Fact Check Team: What's behind Twitter's new designation for NPR? | KATV

Lumping them in with RU/CN state media was obviously just wrong. So Elon changed the label when called out on this dumbshit.

While not as false, the new label is still misleading, especially considering the original intent was to just incorrectly bash these outlets. These are still independent outlets, and people might be gas lit into thinking they are government controlled. NPR's mere .6% federal funding has lasted through both R and D administrations, and I don't think anyone will be able to prove bias depending on who was in charge.

Overall it's just another Elon publicity stunt.

Avatar image for sancho_panzer
Sancho_Panzer

2522

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By Sancho_Panzer
Member since 2015 • 2522 Posts

I'd rather he label some of the actually interesting insights Twitter must have gathered. Stuff like:

This article generally received hateful responses from suburban, middle-class, West coast American men in their forties. Here is a machine-generated typical comment and some keywords you could really set them off with:

Or whatever.

Avatar image for thatforumuser
ThatForumUser

701

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#50 ThatForumUser
Member since 2019 • 701 Posts

@WitIsWisdom said:

Lmfao... cry my a river. The truth hurts huh?

They like to put the label but they do not want any one else to put the label?? 🤔🤔 🤔