news Twitter begins labeling US outlets as US state-affiliated media - starts with NPR

[Communion]

 

[XAMJ]

What's funny is everyone is ANTI-liberal on social media, YET there's been a blue wave in the US and via tiktok, its only getting bigger

[Save-Me-Oprah]

Imagine fuming over NPR

[getBusy]

Honestly that’s ok. Pretty much every country has government funded media. If they want to label all of them then do so. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by getBusy

[Archetype]

This is good, NPR is literally a national state-sponsored media and news service (they say this like every 20 mins on-air).  YouTube already does this I believe with any nationally-run state media.

[Jotham]

They previously specified NPR as an account that doesn't need this label (iirc 10% of its budget actually comes from its budget) but suddenly decided to retract it

 

But also the implementation has been inconsistent overall (as mentioned in OP) so this feels even more personal on Elon's part.

[Zoomer]

Fair enough 

[HïFidelity]

Who cares. I’m more concerned with why my Twitter account got banned that I’ve literally never tweeted from - I only used it for celebrity news / pics / bookmarks.

[ClashAndBurn]

BBC would be more deserving of the state media label with all its puffy content about the Royals  

 

But otherwise, I mean... yeah... NPR getting labeled with this is kinda fair. Hit Fox News, CNN and MSNBC with it too tbh.

[Bang Up]

NPR is one of the best news resources so it makes sense a fascist like Elon would do this to them. It's an attempt to discredit them, obviously.

 

But overall, this kind of thing is good IF it's applied fairly.

[Stimulus]

Less than 1% of NPR's budget comes from the U.S. government.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla has already received $4.9 billion in U.S. government subsidies, and that figure was from 2015. Maybe Twitter should label Tesla's account as state-affiliated.

[Communion]

5 hours ago, Bang Up said:

NPR is one of the best news resources so it makes sense a fascist like Elon would do this to them. It's an attempt to discredit them, obviously.

Why would publicly funded news organizations be automatically less reliable to you vs private ones?

 

The idea that.you think publicly funded media is biased and thus the label is a badge of scorn shows the problem. Let me guess - you trust oligarch owned CNN? 

[Bang Up]

40 minutes ago, Communion said:

Why would publicly funded news organizations be automatically less reliable to you vs private ones?

 

The idea that.you think publicly funded media is biased and thus the label is a badge of scorn shows the problem. Let me guess - you trust oligarch owned CNN? 

what the **** are you even talking about? i didn't even allude to any of this. i said NPR, as in just NPR, is one of the most reliable news sources. it doesn't matter how something is funded if they're objectively good. they could be funded by barack obama himself and if they post good, verified, fact-checked news then they're good.

 

the "badge of scorn" comes from the fact that elon doesn't like reliable news sources because they hurt his feelings. he would label these sources as "state-affiliated" to make them look bad to his own base since his base doesn't like the state.

 

my god, use your brain for once. not everything is an attack.

[Letemtalk]

Because NPR is generally considered to be to the left of the BBC and other state owned media outlets.

There really needs to be a label for Billionaire affiliated media.

 

 

[Bloo]

11 minutes ago, Letemtalk said:

Because NPR is generally considered to be to the left of the BBC and other state owned media outlets.

There really needs to be a label for Billionaire affiliated media.

 

 

In what world are Jacobin and CNN comparable?  

[Letemtalk]

28 minutes ago, Bloo said:

In what world are Jacobin and CNN comparable?  

I'm sure there are a lot of problems with the way they compare different media outlets. Most of the things that Americans call "left" like public funded healthcare are mainstream political policy supported by the centre left and centre right in most parts of the world, so I'm sure there are going to be some strange rankings in there.

 

However, I'm sure that most people would put NPR to the left of the BBC and Voice of America.

[midnightdawn]

What does this even achieve Twitter has bigger problems to deal with than worrying about this

[Stimulus]

3 hours ago, Letemtalk said:

Because NPR is generally considered to be to the left of the BBC and other state owned media outlets.

There really needs to be a label for Billionaire affiliated media.

 

 

That chart is garbage. CNN is not nearly as far to the left as Breitbart and OAN are to the right. Putting AP in anything other than "center" is ridiculous. The caption says it "does not reflect accuracy or credibility" and what the chart ends up doing is position trash-tier media (especially OAN and Newsmax) next to reputable media in the hopes of making the trash look less bad.

 

A much better chart that actually looks at reliability:

 

 

NPR is top-tier with minimal bias, which is why some populists like Elon hate it so much.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Stimulus

[Vermillion]

 

[ClashAndBurn]

NPR isn’t state media in the strictest sense of the word, sure, but it IS hyper partisan media and it reports in the interest of the career officials behind the state. That much is undeniable.

 

 

[Stimulus]

29 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

NPR isn’t state media in the strictest sense of the word, sure, but it IS hyper partisan media and it reports in the interest of the career officials behind the state. That much is undeniable.

 

 

NPR is not TMZ. NPR didn't blindly confirm the gossip about Hunter Biden because the only source for the story was the New York Post, a conservative tabloid that was polled to be the least credible major news organization in New York. NPR reported on the story cautiously, which is what a reputable news organization would do, not a hyper-partisan one.

[ClashAndBurn]

10 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

NPR is not TMZ. NPR didn't blindly confirm the gossip about Hunter Biden because the only source for the story was the New York Post, a conservative tabloid that was polled to be the least credible major news organization in New York. NPR reported on the story cautiously, which is what a reputable news organization would do, not a hyper-partisan one.

“The story isn’t a story” isn’t cautious. It’s literal regurgitation from the Biden Campaign. LORD  

[Stimulus]

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

“The story isn’t a story” isn’t cautious. It’s literal regurgitation from the Biden Campaign. LORD  

When the NY Post writer was so concerned about the reliability of the sources that he avoided putting his name on the tabloid's article, it's obvious that the story was based on flimsy evidence.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html

 

Quote

The New York Post’s front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, two Post employees said.

 

Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article’s credibility, the two Post employees said, speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

 

Many Post staff members questioned whether the paper had done enough to verify the authenticity of the hard drive’s contents, said five people with knowledge of the tabloid’s inner workings. Staff members also had concerns about the reliability of its sources and its timing, the people said.

 

The article named two sources: Stephen K. Bannon, the former adviser to President Trump now facing federal fraud charges, who was said to have made the paper aware of the hard drive last month; and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who was said to have given the paper “a copy” of the hard drive on Oct. 11.

 

Mr. Giuliani said he chose The Post because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

Edited April 7, 2023 by Stimulus

[ClashAndBurn]

8 minutes ago, Stimulus said:

When the NY Post writer was so concerned about the reliability of the sources that he avoided putting his name on the tabloid's article, it's obvious that the story was based on flimsy evidence.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html

 

Flimsy evidence? When the laptop and the contents of it verifiably exist?! You people make everything up

 

They were concerned about it because the intelligence community was discrediting it as Russian misinformation and Twitter was actively suppressing the story because they all wanted Biden to win at all costs. 

[Stimulus]

On 4/7/2023 at 8:05 PM, ClashAndBurn said:

Flimsy evidence? When the laptop and the contents of it verifiably exist?! You people make everything up

 

They were concerned about it because the intelligence community was discrediting it as Russian misinformation and Twitter was actively suppressing the story because they all wanted Biden to win at all costs. 

Trump allies released the files from the laptop after the files were tampered with.

 

Tabloids like the NY Post quickly publish stories without vetting them, and even in this case, the author didn't want his name attached to the story because he know the story had serious issues. Reputable news organizations like NPR don't publish rumors without credible backing. The NY Post barely accepted the story with Bannon and Giuliani, two people with very little credibility, being the only named sources. That kind of backing didn't meet NPR's standards.