View Full Version : Twitter/NPR Tiff
I see Twitter and NPR are feuding over Twitter categorizing NPR as first “state-funded” and then “government-funded”. NPR repeats the claim that they only get 1% of their funding from the feds. That seems a bit disingenuous, considering who owns the stations they broadcast from and where their funding comes from.
On the other hand, inconvenient truth or not, is Twitter just trying to grab attention by triggering a fairly predictable hissy fit on NPR’s part?
And now PBS is complaining and threatening to leave the platform as well. I enjoyed Musk's response, "Publicly funded PBS joins publicly funded NPR in leaving Twitter in a huff after being labeled "Publicly Funded"."
Being labeled publicly funded shouldn’t be viewed so negatively. After all, I understand that farmers are proud to call themselves publicly funded, an entirely accurate description since total farm income includes welfare payments that represent anywhere from 20-40% of total farm income depending on what year’s data one looks at.
iris lilies
4-13-23, 11:50am
Being labeled publicly funded shouldn’t be viewed so negatively. After all, I understand that farmers are proud to call themselves publicly funded, an entirely accurate description since total farm income includes welfare payments that represent anywhere from 20-40% of total farm income depending on what year’s data one looks at.
So jp, why ARE NPR etc all in a huff?
The head of NPR/STL bought a house in my neighborhood, moving from .San Francisco. She paid probably the highest price per sq footage than anyone in recent years. Granted, it is a modest house on the order of the house we sold, but yowza, that much money. She’s not even living there much. Scuttlebut is she is insufferably arrogant, and I won’t say who said that because this is a public forum.
Does it really matter if they leave Twitter? It doesn't seem like that big a deal to the luddite in me.
I send PBS my annual donation so I can get their passport access to a lot of programs I enjoy and could care less about who's neighbor might have done what over some sort of scuttle butt. I thought Trump cut most of their government funds?
iris lilies
4-13-23, 12:38pm
Does it really matter if they leave Twitter? It doesn't seem like that big a deal to the luddite in me.
I send PBS my annual donation so I can get their passport access to a lot of programs I enjoy and could care less about who's neighbor might have done what over some sort of scuttle butt. I thought Trump cut most of their government funds?
Dude, it is NPR in STL! Get it right, you have to care! Haha. Just kidding, of course you wouldnt care, why would you?
There was a little bit of a scandal with the last NPR head in my city, so maybe this chick will straighten that out. Charges of racism. All I remember is that contributing to my dwindling liking of NPR we had local commentators speaking Ebonics. I’m not sure if that’s what they’re supposed to do to get new listeners but that among many other things (firing Juan Williams, the Schiller controversies, etc.) made me stop writing checks to NPR.
I still listen now and then when in the car but I dont’t listen nearly as much as I once did. Our radio in the house was once on all the time, often tuned to NPR.
So jp, why ARE NPR etc all in a huff?
Honestly I don’t know. Anyone who cares about such things already knows what Twitter has become. Personally I wouldn’t have fed that troll. He gets enough feeding already.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-23, 2:25pm
Because it wasn't called publicly funded but state affiliated media. Those carry very different associations. So Musk is straight up lying now I guess about what the controversy even was. And if NPR is state affiliated in any meaningful way then so is all major U.S. media, they can and do all push the empire's interest when they want to.
The whole thing rests on an assumption that the small amount of funding NPR gets from the govt changes everything but ONLY *direct* funding influences things, and all other incentives like say access journalism (and that's just one example) influence nothing. It's silly - an incredibly simplistic analysis.
I mean I know Musk doesn't do nuance or trying to genuinely understand the social and political world or anything like that. He's probably never really had any interest in it. Ok might be best if he'd just admit that. Unfortunately despite having very limited understanding of the relevant areas he choose to weigh in on, he does have power at Twitter, that he exercises at his whim. So he's going to get called on it because he's way out of his depth.
And meanwhile the world burns.
iris lilies
4-13-23, 3:01pm
And meanwhile the world burns.
You are welcome to step in and solve that big stuff while the rest of us of small minds concern ourselves with this drivel.:)
I still listen now and then when in the car but I dont’t listen nearly as much as I once did. Our radio in the house was once on all the time, often tuned to NPR.
I’m the same way. Twenty or thirty years ago, there were a lot fewer options for the kind of programming NPR offered. You suffered though the condescending, smug news and opinion to get to the good stuff. But cable and streaming and podcasting allows access to the interesting stuff without the need to put up with woke preening and virtue signaling.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-23, 6:04pm
Labeling perfectly legitimate news sources (which does not mean unbiased*), as state affiliated propaganda isn't going to help dealing with any bigger issues.
*I've never believed the bias to be particularly "liberal" whatever that means now. Conservatives call NRP "liberal", progressive call it "Nice Polite Republicans". I think it's basically neoliberal in outlook
I have a couple of community radio stations that are favorites. They subscribe to NPR morning and afternoon news and a few other features, but play music with minimal advertising the rest of the time. I'm ok with that, but the endless news on the routine NPR news does get a little old and agree certain topics are a bit overdone.
Twitter apparently tried to do the with the BBC. They’re not state funded. All their revenue comes from the UK TV license.
iris lilies
4-13-23, 11:06pm
Twitter apparently tried to do the with the BBC. They’re not state funded. All their revenue comes from the UK TV license.
I would consider BBC quasi-state funded. The Beeb and ITV, etc. are supported by a tax, a tax imposed by the government. While their income is not an appropriation directly from the government, their entire income derives from actions of the government.
ToomuchStuff
4-14-23, 12:47am
And meanwhile the world burns.
And heard in that old cartoon voice from "meanwhile at the hall of justice"
I would consider BBC quasi-state funded. The Beeb and ITV, etc. are supported by a tax, a tax imposed by the government. While their income is not an appropriation directly from the government, their entire income derives from actions of the government.
I agree. My local cable access stations are like this. Every municipality in my state is forced to collect cable TV taxes and turn them over to the TV organization which in turn must air public meetings.
I would consider BBC quasi-state funded. The Beeb and ITV, etc. are supported by a tax, a tax imposed by the government. While their income is not an appropriation directly from the government, their entire income derives from actions of the government.
I think you’re right. Calling an obligatory, government mandated payment a fee rather than a tax is a distinction without a difference. It reminds me of the debate over Obamacare, when the Administration argued that penalties for not buying insurance were not taxes. It took the Supreme Court to stop that fiction.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.