Fair enough, but without doing linguistic gymnastics, "State-affiliated" should also be seen by any reasonably educated adult to indicate "State-edited". "State-funded" is an appropriate tag! I'd recommend this, actually.
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.
Virtually no media companies admit to being state edited, even if they are literally a department of the government. Heck it's common even for government agencies to claim they are independent of "the government" despite being a part of it. So if that were the bar, there'd be no such labelling at all.
They are playing fast and loose with their accounting by ignoring the large contribution that comes from local affiliate stations, local affiliate stations that receive a large part of their funding from the corporation for public broadcasting, a government sponsored entity.
In reality government funding accounts for much more than 1% of NPR's budget.
it seems its not. they say 30% of NPRs funding come from local affiliates paying for NPR programming. And on average those local NPRs get 8% of their funding from government. Do the math, that means 2.4% + 1% of NPR comes directly government
"And on average those local NPRs get 8% of their funding from government."
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.
but as v0idzer0 pointed out in a reply to your similar comment above
"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"
"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.
Is it? "State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution."
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
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.
NPR was, quite-literally created by an act of the United States congress.
It receives DIRECT funding from the United States government.
Twitter was generous in changing the label from "State-affiliated" media (given that it was literally created by the US Government) to "Government-funded media".
There is no possible argument against the "Government-funded media" label that makes sense. They're government funded. NPR's parent company, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is also government funded. Neither of these funding points are debatable (aka Full stop).
Corporations and institutions/foundations make up more than half of NPR's funding. And that exceeds the pledge drive funding, which collectively vastly exceeds the government funds they receive.
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.
And then lets run the same statistics for administrations from the other side. After all, state-controlled media would have to follow switching government lines on this, so it'll show Republicans loving NPR and Democrats hating it during the previous administration, correct?
I'm not making a claim on political affiliation (and don't have a detailed opinion on it, being not from the US I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes). It's not necessary for my argument. (People desperately trying to turn everything they dislike into government-led propaganda is sadly an international pattern)
>I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes).
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.
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."
>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.
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.
It's divisive, unpleasant and really, really tired. Please stop.
>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.
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.
Yikes - I didn't see this earlier but this is the kind of thing we ban accounts for, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Please don't do this again.
To get that out of the way, you can follow the smart process proposed by the person you answer to:
If indeed the organization is biased because government funded, it means that they will never publish stories that the government is not happy with.
So, under Biden, they will not publish stories that Democrats don't like, and under Trump, they will not publish stories that Republicans don't like.
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.
Your arguments seem to hinge on some hypothetical world where Republicans are in charge AND the executive agencies are all on board with their agenda. Then, to be "government funded" NPR would have to hew to the Republican line. Q.E.D.
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.
If the executive agencies are imposing their agenda rather than the "government agenda", then, they are not biased for being "government funded", they are being biased for being "funded". If the government has no power, they could be "government funded", or "privately funded", or whatever, they are not manipulated by the government, they are manipulated by a lobby.
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)
I'm not even the person you asked. What exactly is your goal? Get a random person on the internet to disagree with you about something that's not even on topic for the discussion at hand?
You’ve supported my point: there’s no consistent forced state narrative. Bias for or against a political party is orthogonal to whether the state itself is executing editorial control.
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."
How is "I'd not seen that part, details please" a delaying tactic? You'd really help your argument if you, you know, supported it instead of trying to divert with questions. Sorry that I don't take "The twitter files prove that the government controls NPR" at face value.
That's really the best you can do? One story that amplifies NPR's dislike of Saudi Arabia ("Yemen" is hardly the centerpiece of Biden foreign policy),
and another claiming there's dislike of the Democratic primary calendar?
