Couldn't label NPR as state sponsored so removed the label entirely?
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
364 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59123 readers
2299 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Other way around. Musk's backers wanted the state media label gone, so he applied it to legit sources so it would be destroyed by the outcry.
Musk wasn't wrong in applying the state media tag to NPR/BBC/CBC. At the end of the day, they are funded by the state.
There's a difference between state-funded and partisan state media. And technically all major newspapers in Canada get some funding from the government, for example.
They didn't label e.g. DW, which very much is state-fundend, not public, media. They're not even allowed to broadcast within Germany: Not only is it state TV, on top of that it's federal state TV. Broadcasting in Germany is prerogative of the states, the federation plain and simply doesn't get to do it.
Disclosing ownership/financing structures of media outlets is never a bad thing. DW is in every way whatsoever Germany's foreign propaganda outlet, it has some very clear editorial lines aligning it 110% to German foreign policy. That it also has better journalistic integrity than the BBC not to speak of Radio Liberty or any large privately-financed broadcaster is another topic.
State funding describes a conflict of interest, whether perceived or actual.
There's an ocean of difference between "funded by a democratic country and operated through an arm's length organization" and "funded by a totalitarian dictatorship to be an apparatus of the state".
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
-- Dril
The propoganda must flow.
That was why Musk was likely asked by foreign governments to buy Twitter, and how he spoke to Putin. He is completely compromised. Any one of us would probably be held liable for something involving collusion with foreign hostile governments, but we have to baby our billionaires afterall.
So State labelled media was basically just keep wrong narratives under wraps, keep people away from them and shaft them down the algorithm where nobody would see it unless they went especially looking for it. It never had anything to do with "state media" since no western state media got the label, never had anything to do with lies, disinformation or propaganda either, since what is wider media these days anyway. It had everything to do with not following the Euro-Atlantic narrative and god forbid letting the designated "enemy countries" voice their side of the story. Why there is so much Twitter/X hate rn. in the media is because the western global ministry of truth fears losing grasp of the narrative if too much freedom is introduced.
I want to hear no bullshit here about how this was actually ever good and necessary and why we need narrative control for "democracy" and for protection of the fragile minds of the plebs who don't know any better than to believe Russian and Chinese lies.
Edit: Oh right fediverse is has sizeable portion of assmad X refugees who now hate X and Musk and left when the people they don't like got to post again. I must have struck a nerve Explains partly the dislikes. The others I guess are the unironic censorship supporters on a free speech platform, for various reasons.
the Euro-Atlantic narrative
the western global ministry of truth
I've never lol'd harder in my life. Please tell me that their halls look at least half as cool as the Ministry of Magic in Westminster
Uh...what
and god forbid letting the designated "enemy countries" voice their side of the story
But they could still do that. The only difference is, more people knew who the story was coming from.
Why do you want them to be able to obfuscate the source?
So instead of labeling Western propaganda as well, the solution is obviously to not label any propaganda whatsoever so people can be lied to by both sides?
Which western state media met xitter's definition of state-affiliated?
NPR. I shit you not.
You know NPR was literally included in xitter's definition of "state-funded with editorial independence" until Musk shat himself right ?
NPR does receive U.S. government funding through grants from federal agencies and departments, along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The company said it accounts for less than 1% of NPR’s annual operating budget. But until Wednesday, the same Twitter guidelines said that “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the United States, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.”
https://apnews.com/article/twitter-npr-state-affiliated-media-label-dea3e04905e423f7a8df9ba077d421f3
I think most people who live in the UK can tell you the BBC is extremely bias - they might not be controlled by the gov directly, but the people in charge are very pro right wing
I live in the UK and I disagree with you. Assuming this right wing bias is true, how does it evidenced itself in the BBC’s programming and news coverage? Because I don’t see it. Especially their news, which seems very even-handed to me.
I stopped paying for and watching the BBC a few years ago, before I cancelled there was so much conservative coverage, they were inviting way more members of the Tory party onto the news
A quick search says that BBC is regularly accused of bias in both directions. Australia's ABC is definitely accused of both.
Regardless. The policy doesn't say anything about bias. It's simply "editorial independence".
Because the BBC has a a neoliberal, economically right wing while socially liberal, bias.
The left will shout bias when the BBC ignores reality. The right will shout bias when the BBC reports reality.
I heard about it. I am a fan of Marketplace. It's just insane that he tried to silence it after all that free speech bullshit he sprouted, while he removed the notice on media literally owned by authoritarian states. He's a wingnut. Up is down, good is bad, etc..
I’m so confused by this
What is something these state accounts posted that actually was worth reading lol. I get my propaganda from TikTok and YouTube already, thanks.