NPR gets less than 1% of its funding from the government these days. It only gets federal funding when it competes for grants that are open to anyone. Republicans cut the regular public funding of NPR a while back.
Sort of misleading of Twitter to even say that about NPR. Is any org that gets a government grant “state-financed”?
You can't be this naive... where money comes from always influences editorial decisions even if you don't want to admit it to yourself. Where money comes from always influences and colors peoples decisions. NPR and PBS can claim to even themselves they are editorially independent, don't have bias... but they receive US federal government funding directly from CPB and exist due to a US federal govt government mandate. Anyway... it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed of how Twitter labels state affiliated media.
This pattern being discussed even happens with media outlets that are literally operated directly by the US federal government and were very publicly created as part of CIA adjacent cold war era influence programs, yet somehow they aren't "state affiliated media". For example... [VOA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America) and a half dozen other international media outlets operated by the [United States Agency for Global Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media) , none of which get flagged "state affiliated media".
If you don't believe this, go check the [VOA Twitter account](https://mobile.twitter.com/VOANews) and take note it isn't flagged "state affiliated media". An international news outlet targeted at audiences outside the domestic USA, whose headquarters is a [US federal government building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_J._Cohen_Federal_Building) in the DC-Virginia area, and [whose employees](https://mobile.twitter.com/voadirector?lang=en) are US federal government employees... but not state affiliated media...
Stop gaslighting everyone with this bullshit because you can't be this naive or american exceptionalism lib pilled. It's no different than "expat" and "immigrant" or "migrant". The "editorial independence" claim as a distinction is bullshit because where money comes from always influences editorial decisions and you have to be arguing in bad faith to not be able to see the pattern here.
^(edit: lol... getting downvoted, swear r-dankleft has gone from a leftist subreddit to one taken over by liberals)
Fr this sub is just radlibs now. You’re spitting facts, and people on a leftist sub seem to think that they have to spend their time defending capitalist news organizations?
You cited a completely separate media company as evidence, which operates completely differently than NPR… you’re off your rocker. Take me at my word. Don’t. Idgaf. I know more about NPR than you.
My point is the editorial independence excuse is bullshit. The real distinction is no different than how the term "expat" or "immigrant" or "migrant" get used. Pleanty of the outlets labeled state affiliated media also have the very same structures as what you discribed for NPR but are labeled "state affiliated media" while there are western outlets that are literally directly operated by US federal government agencies that are not labeled "state affiliated media".
No journalism is "objective", that's a myth western journalists like to tell themselves but where money comes from always influences and colors peoples decisions.
You understand that the debunking you are trying is what actually comes across a delusional and deranged.
To read there comment as saying NPR is completetly objective would be a bit unfair. They were simply illustrating the structure of NPR and how they work to be more independent of their revenue source. You cant act like linking sources to a separate outlet that operates different is a fair comparison
There is no editorial independence, your revenue streams influence your editorial decisions. It's only independent if you don't have to care about money or readership
And even then it’s not really independent vis a vis the state because the process of state indoctrination begins in childhood and the system selects for people who have swallowed it whole. So even the editorial independence of network news or the largest papers back when they had an effective monopoly on information sharing still naturally kept many subjects from being discussed (usually related to US imperial interests).
Congratulations, you came right up the the point, and just ignored it.
Yes, BBC, NPR, CNN, France24, DW, etc. are all owned by capitalists and operate for capitalist interests.
> One could extend your logic basically indefinitely. Nothing is ever independent unless there are no other stakeholders with interest whatsoever.
>And by the logic of the other commenter, even that technically is a no go if the one remaining stakeholder was exposed to a life of education and indoctrination.
Yes, that's the basic thesis of *Inventing Reality* and *Manufacturing Consent.*
No, it's the biggest lie in that paragraph. There is no "editorial independence" in a capitalist corporation beholden to either a bourgeois dictatorship directly, or indirectly by bring owned by the bourgeoisie who profit from and perpetuate said dictatorship.
No, the most important part is that they're not labelled, despite the aforementioned lie. This shows just how subtle and insidious capitalist cultural hegemony can be. They don't even necessarily need to lie when they can just omit the truth or parts of the truth and because they're peoples' only source of info, what is omitted ceases to exist for them.
You can make any website end with .CN,
any website,
Twitter will identify it as China state financed.
I don't know if they fixed it,
But at least it used to be like that.
I mean, its actually different. The difference is that the editorial influence and censhorship in the likes of BBC and NPR comes from private sponsors and not the state, which is actually much worse, but coherent with the new twitter management unfortunately.
And has been consistently threatened by the Tory government with a withdrawal of funding, via the TV licence fee, whenever they provide a what might be considered a critical (read as accurate) view of the current government
So what you're saying is the BBC is under financial pressure from the government to follow their narrative? Sounds like state funded media with extera steps.
The BBC derives it right to exist directly from negotiations conducted with the UK Government every 10 years. It always has to have one eye on the date and where they are in the cycle of Charter negotiations.
It doesn't derive direct financial support from the state, but instead is granted unique permission to collect its own specific tax. If the government were to withdraw that permission the BBC would be lost.
So there's plenty of government influence at the beeb.
It also comes from the state. The indoctrination of the state is universal, and the corporate media selects for those who swallowed the indoctrination.
NPR is usually incredibly critical of US domestic and foreign policy though, in fact they’re the least biased major media outlet in that country (although that isn’t that high of a bar). You can’t compare that to say RT which is NEVER critical of Russia.
It’s really not tho. It’s critical compared to other US media, sure, but ultimately it plays the role of defining what is the maximum extent of “acceptable” criticism, a job it does very well. It’s no opponent of the system.
For me, I'd say the news wires such as the Associated Press or Reuters that simply report the news without analysis are likely the least biased.
NPR certainly has its own biases, specifically when it comes to what they choose to report and how its framed such as headline wording. And these editorial biases can appear sometimes unconsciously perhaps. Arguably much of NPR's bias comes not from leftist sensationalism or spin but from omission --- what's *not* included like right-wing perspectives or counterpoints.
That said, bias affects every news organization that introduces their brand of observations and scrutiny into the news. Some much, much more than others of course.
Let’s not use the liberal definition of “unbiased”, there’s nothing noble to reporting on injustice and staying silent perpetuating the cycle of oppression. That being said, they’re still openly capitalist and soft imperialist, but in the US the only thing we have to leftist media is Jacobin and the Intercept… which are still small scale journalist outfits.
Jacobin had talked about making a streaming service called JNN for a while now since most people, especially in the US, don’t read. I hope they do since they have some quality journalists.
'member when the news broke a few days ago that a jurno with the very liberal and respected^(TM) *LA Times* would run stories by the Alphabets? Pepperidge Farm 'members!
[L.A. Reporter Times Reporter Cleared Stories with Agency Before Publication](https://www.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/comments/unevp0/the_cias_mopup_man_la_times_reporter_cleared/)
**Do not participate in linked threads**
Commenting or voting in linked subs is against reddit site-wide rules and users who violate this rule will be banned.
****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DankLeft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their white supremacy was at full display when a meme took off because it turned out that *any* claim made that referenced a Chinese website got flagged as state media, regardless of if it was a real website or not. They literally blanket-banned China.
Because I'm a software dev and know that weord shit falls through sometimes. Do you ha e a source saying it was on purpose? I'm not saying it's impossible just unlikely?
I seriously can't believe how much faith they put in a distinction that's impossible to prove. Didn't Chomsky say that it doesn't matter if they have the freedom to say what they want because who hires them already expects them to say what they want.
It's staggering. If ever one needed an example of the Americans pretending to be leftists and their total media illiteracy, it is this threat right here.
For the love of god, people, read *Inventing Reality* by Michael Parenti.
Are we not supposed to read what you didn't underline? Like how they explain that there's not only other methods about how to exercise editorial control, but also that that control is the single distinction, and how they mention they consider BBC and NPR as editorially independent?
That's fair if you disagree but it's not lying.
Alright, tbh I'm not familiar with voice of America, someone else brought up radio free Asia and all that. Again, I think disagreement is valid/correct but it's weird to frame that as lying. Like it implies genuine intent to deceive when it's easier to explain this as hegemony being endorsed by the main benefactors of hegemony, the executives.
i feel using a double standard for a labeling system that is presented as fact, when it is actually opinion, is deliberately misinforming users, aka "lying"
without proving the lack of editorial influence from the state, the exceptions are intentionally misleading
it's more overt then many though. it's pretty transparent how heavily they skew right in the name of "impartiality" BC otherwise the Tories threaten to take away the licence fee (and then they do they anyway)
My countries state media is funded by the state and yet regularly reports on the latest government scandal (of which there are quite a bunch) without bending or omitting any facts. State news agencies of dictatorial countries do not do this. Not that western state-funded media are unbiased by a long shot (looking at you, BBC) but there's still a clear difference between that and what is usually labeled as "state-affiliated media" by Twitter.
I mean, yes, in theory that's ok. That's how their definition works. And you can argue that BBC or NPR do have editorial discretion.
On the other hand, they don't even tag openly propagandistic outlets like voice of America. So their standards suck anyway.
To be fair, though the Dutch state media has editorial independence and will report negatively on the government, watchdogs and the media themselves have complained that the government tends to cut the budget the first oppertunity after that.
The Dutch media is in no way comparable to RT. But independent Dutch news reporting is very much at risk.
Except you’ve never actually read “state news agencies of dictatorial countries”. They also report scandals when they happen, it’s the news and they report the news. But they, like your country’s state media, will never do any meaningful investigative journalism and will especially never challenge the status quo.
State media not reporting on their own state corruption would completely undermine the feeling of democracy.
The problem is how often they undercover corruption scandals.
Reporting on things that are already public is thbe bare minimum.
It depends. The likes of Al Jazeera, the Qatari state funded news network is absolutely fearless in its international coverage but doesn't cover Qatar at all so far as I can tell.
[A quick Google search of NPR Amazon](https://www.google.com/search?q=NPR+Amazon&oq=NPR+Amazon&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l8.4241j0j4&client=ms-android-cricket-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1)
Shows a dozen negative articles from this year alone.
Whenever they do run an article about Amazon, they always state that Amazon is one of their sponsors.
We can measure the ratio of true things vs false things said by any given news organization, and NPR is the most reliably true. Way on the other end, the top 10 least reliably true are all explicitly conservative news outlets.
Yep. NPR seems to be focused more on unbiased reporting, which is why they rate the highest on factually true information, and is why the right loves to call them leftist. Reality has a leftist bias.
>It's about whether those financial resources are used to influence editorial decisions.
So the thing that happens in each and every media outlet both privately and publicly owned.
Do yourself a favor and check out Michael Parenti's inventing reality
Wait but if we are being good faith about this isn't there a real difference between the two? As in is clear that the BBC or NPR is litearlly the state's media channel, whereas for channels that claim to be independent but are actually state propaganda, like RT for example, there is a layer of plausible deniability that the firms have which can be useful to be exposed.
SHould this be the resposnbiilty of twitter? idk. is the statement incorrect? not really
It’s so tiresome how conspiratorial American Lefties get about news outlets.
It’s naive. All the folks too radical to listen to NPR. All the folks too quick to defend them.
Neither of you are cool. And you both got all your politics from mainstream television, books you bought on Amazon, and fuckin Reddit.
All news sources should be scrutinized and all mainstream outlets should be engaged with in order to stay informed.
No one at the New York Times or The Washington Post is getting jailed for radical journalism, and nothing they publish was written in the apolitical vacuum of deep space. Both can be true.
I mean, NPR is probably the most private "public radio" on the planet. it's truly not that closely affiliated with the state the way that BBC or Al-Jazeera are.
I prefer my sources to be pressured and influenced by their corporate sponsors
Here's why the US government should give Amazon $100 billion:
*10 Reasons Why Privatizing Your Reproductive Rights and Sex Life might be Good for You! (Number 7 will SHOCK you!!)*
Leave my kinks out of this
But what if exactly that *is* your kink?
No comment
The way the whole media class howled when Sanders dismissed WaPo reporters out of hand was really hilarious.
[Relevant](https://i.imgur.com/4EvA42w.jpg)
That they used a picture of Bozos for their "pls don't tax billionaires" article is perfect. Also Megan McArdle lol
If the corporation that rents your labour isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch can what you do even really be considered news?
Which is precisely why NPR has gotten significantly worse over the last 20 years.
This! NPR used to be my go to, but its so transparently influenced by their donors now. I love when they actually have some good journalism.
NPR gets less than 1% of its funding from the government these days. It only gets federal funding when it competes for grants that are open to anyone. Republicans cut the regular public funding of NPR a while back. Sort of misleading of Twitter to even say that about NPR. Is any org that gets a government grant “state-financed”?
[удалено]
You can't be this naive... where money comes from always influences editorial decisions even if you don't want to admit it to yourself. Where money comes from always influences and colors peoples decisions. NPR and PBS can claim to even themselves they are editorially independent, don't have bias... but they receive US federal government funding directly from CPB and exist due to a US federal govt government mandate. Anyway... it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed of how Twitter labels state affiliated media. This pattern being discussed even happens with media outlets that are literally operated directly by the US federal government and were very publicly created as part of CIA adjacent cold war era influence programs, yet somehow they aren't "state affiliated media". For example... [VOA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America) and a half dozen other international media outlets operated by the [United States Agency for Global Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media) , none of which get flagged "state affiliated media". If you don't believe this, go check the [VOA Twitter account](https://mobile.twitter.com/VOANews) and take note it isn't flagged "state affiliated media". An international news outlet targeted at audiences outside the domestic USA, whose headquarters is a [US federal government building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_J._Cohen_Federal_Building) in the DC-Virginia area, and [whose employees](https://mobile.twitter.com/voadirector?lang=en) are US federal government employees... but not state affiliated media... Stop gaslighting everyone with this bullshit because you can't be this naive or american exceptionalism lib pilled. It's no different than "expat" and "immigrant" or "migrant". The "editorial independence" claim as a distinction is bullshit because where money comes from always influences editorial decisions and you have to be arguing in bad faith to not be able to see the pattern here. ^(edit: lol... getting downvoted, swear r-dankleft has gone from a leftist subreddit to one taken over by liberals)
Fr this sub is just radlibs now. You’re spitting facts, and people on a leftist sub seem to think that they have to spend their time defending capitalist news organizations?
You cited a completely separate media company as evidence, which operates completely differently than NPR… you’re off your rocker. Take me at my word. Don’t. Idgaf. I know more about NPR than you.
My point is the editorial independence excuse is bullshit. The real distinction is no different than how the term "expat" or "immigrant" or "migrant" get used. Pleanty of the outlets labeled state affiliated media also have the very same structures as what you discribed for NPR but are labeled "state affiliated media" while there are western outlets that are literally directly operated by US federal government agencies that are not labeled "state affiliated media". No journalism is "objective", that's a myth western journalists like to tell themselves but where money comes from always influences and colors peoples decisions. You understand that the debunking you are trying is what actually comes across a delusional and deranged.
To read there comment as saying NPR is completetly objective would be a bit unfair. They were simply illustrating the structure of NPR and how they work to be more independent of their revenue source. You cant act like linking sources to a separate outlet that operates different is a fair comparison
Also funny is the image underlines everything except the editorial independence part.
There is no editorial independence, your revenue streams influence your editorial decisions. It's only independent if you don't have to care about money or readership
And even then it’s not really independent vis a vis the state because the process of state indoctrination begins in childhood and the system selects for people who have swallowed it whole. So even the editorial independence of network news or the largest papers back when they had an effective monopoly on information sharing still naturally kept many subjects from being discussed (usually related to US imperial interests).
[удалено]
Congratulations, you came right up the the point, and just ignored it. Yes, BBC, NPR, CNN, France24, DW, etc. are all owned by capitalists and operate for capitalist interests.
> One could extend your logic basically indefinitely. Nothing is ever independent unless there are no other stakeholders with interest whatsoever. >And by the logic of the other commenter, even that technically is a no go if the one remaining stakeholder was exposed to a life of education and indoctrination. Yes, that's the basic thesis of *Inventing Reality* and *Manufacturing Consent.*
A leftist space devolving into petty squabbles? Well I never...
Yeah probably the most important part of that second paragraph.
No, it's the biggest lie in that paragraph. There is no "editorial independence" in a capitalist corporation beholden to either a bourgeois dictatorship directly, or indirectly by bring owned by the bourgeoisie who profit from and perpetuate said dictatorship.
Would biggest lie not equal the most important?
No, the most important part is that they're not labelled, despite the aforementioned lie. This shows just how subtle and insidious capitalist cultural hegemony can be. They don't even necessarily need to lie when they can just omit the truth or parts of the truth and because they're peoples' only source of info, what is omitted ceases to exist for them.
They aren't editorially independent organizations, that's why.
NPR (during 50% of their stories): "We should note NPR receives funding from [insert heinous company here]."
NPR gets a lot of its money from sus orgs though like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, no?
Well yeah! It would actually be better if it got more government funding and was less dependent on shitty big donors imo.
It's the *meme* that's misleading? What a Terri Gross takeaway. Jesus.
You can make any website end with .CN, any website, Twitter will identify it as China state financed. I don't know if they fixed it, But at least it used to be like that.
I mean, its actually different. The difference is that the editorial influence and censhorship in the likes of BBC and NPR comes from private sponsors and not the state, which is actually much worse, but coherent with the new twitter management unfortunately.
the BBC is 100% influenced by the government
And has been consistently threatened by the Tory government with a withdrawal of funding, via the TV licence fee, whenever they provide a what might be considered a critical (read as accurate) view of the current government
So what you're saying is the BBC is under financial pressure from the government to follow their narrative? Sounds like state funded media with extera steps.
The BBC derives it right to exist directly from negotiations conducted with the UK Government every 10 years. It always has to have one eye on the date and where they are in the cycle of Charter negotiations. It doesn't derive direct financial support from the state, but instead is granted unique permission to collect its own specific tax. If the government were to withdraw that permission the BBC would be lost. So there's plenty of government influence at the beeb.
It also comes from the state. The indoctrination of the state is universal, and the corporate media selects for those who swallowed the indoctrination.
NPR is usually incredibly critical of US domestic and foreign policy though, in fact they’re the least biased major media outlet in that country (although that isn’t that high of a bar). You can’t compare that to say RT which is NEVER critical of Russia.
It’s really not tho. It’s critical compared to other US media, sure, but ultimately it plays the role of defining what is the maximum extent of “acceptable” criticism, a job it does very well. It’s no opponent of the system.
For me, I'd say the news wires such as the Associated Press or Reuters that simply report the news without analysis are likely the least biased. NPR certainly has its own biases, specifically when it comes to what they choose to report and how its framed such as headline wording. And these editorial biases can appear sometimes unconsciously perhaps. Arguably much of NPR's bias comes not from leftist sensationalism or spin but from omission --- what's *not* included like right-wing perspectives or counterpoints. That said, bias affects every news organization that introduces their brand of observations and scrutiny into the news. Some much, much more than others of course.
Let’s not use the liberal definition of “unbiased”, there’s nothing noble to reporting on injustice and staying silent perpetuating the cycle of oppression. That being said, they’re still openly capitalist and soft imperialist, but in the US the only thing we have to leftist media is Jacobin and the Intercept… which are still small scale journalist outfits. Jacobin had talked about making a streaming service called JNN for a while now since most people, especially in the US, don’t read. I hope they do since they have some quality journalists.
'member when the news broke a few days ago that a jurno with the very liberal and respected^(TM) *LA Times* would run stories by the Alphabets? Pepperidge Farm 'members! [L.A. Reporter Times Reporter Cleared Stories with Agency Before Publication](https://www.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/comments/unevp0/the_cias_mopup_man_la_times_reporter_cleared/)
The LA Times has always been very odd, though. They were always “oddly” pro-Trump and anti-Bernie, especially in 2016.
**Do not participate in linked threads** Commenting or voting in linked subs is against reddit site-wide rules and users who violate this rule will be banned. **** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DankLeft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a Brit, fuck the BBC. They've been getting worse over the last few years and I fucking hate how few people have noticed.
Their white supremacy was at full display when a meme took off because it turned out that *any* claim made that referenced a Chinese website got flagged as state media, regardless of if it was a real website or not. They literally blanket-banned China.
Or it was just a bug?
It wasn't a bug. They programmed it to work that way. Why are you even entertaining the possibility it wasn't intended?
Because I'm a software dev and know that weord shit falls through sometimes. Do you ha e a source saying it was on purpose? I'm not saying it's impossible just unlikely?
Uuuuuuuuuuuggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I don't know how all the people here in the comments saying "b-but they have editorial independence! Check-mate" manage to call themselves leftists.
I'm with you, truly amazing replies in this thread. and by amazing I mean horrible takes.
I seriously can't believe how much faith they put in a distinction that's impossible to prove. Didn't Chomsky say that it doesn't matter if they have the freedom to say what they want because who hires them already expects them to say what they want.
It's staggering. If ever one needed an example of the Americans pretending to be leftists and their total media illiteracy, it is this threat right here. For the love of god, people, read *Inventing Reality* by Michael Parenti.
I hate both, and neither are unbiased, but trying to compare BBC and RT is amazingly dishonest.
[удалено]
shut up bruh
Are we not supposed to read what you didn't underline? Like how they explain that there's not only other methods about how to exercise editorial control, but also that that control is the single distinction, and how they mention they consider BBC and NPR as editorially independent? That's fair if you disagree but it's not lying.
Yeah, except propaganda outlets like voice of America are still unmarked. We can argue about BBC and NPR if you want. VoA is just propaganda.
yeah i especially love that radio free asia doesn’t get a state-affiliated media tag…
Alright, tbh I'm not familiar with voice of America, someone else brought up radio free Asia and all that. Again, I think disagreement is valid/correct but it's weird to frame that as lying. Like it implies genuine intent to deceive when it's easier to explain this as hegemony being endorsed by the main benefactors of hegemony, the executives.
i feel using a double standard for a labeling system that is presented as fact, when it is actually opinion, is deliberately misinforming users, aka "lying" without proving the lack of editorial influence from the state, the exceptions are intentionally misleading
how exactly is someone going to claim the BBC is under no direct OR INDIRECT political pressure to report in certain ways?
Because all media has some amount of political pressure. It’s just about drawing the line somewhere on a subjective measure of quality.
it's more overt then many though. it's pretty transparent how heavily they skew right in the name of "impartiality" BC otherwise the Tories threaten to take away the licence fee (and then they do they anyway)
My countries state media is funded by the state and yet regularly reports on the latest government scandal (of which there are quite a bunch) without bending or omitting any facts. State news agencies of dictatorial countries do not do this. Not that western state-funded media are unbiased by a long shot (looking at you, BBC) but there's still a clear difference between that and what is usually labeled as "state-affiliated media" by Twitter.
I mean, yes, in theory that's ok. That's how their definition works. And you can argue that BBC or NPR do have editorial discretion. On the other hand, they don't even tag openly propagandistic outlets like voice of America. So their standards suck anyway.
To be fair, though the Dutch state media has editorial independence and will report negatively on the government, watchdogs and the media themselves have complained that the government tends to cut the budget the first oppertunity after that. The Dutch media is in no way comparable to RT. But independent Dutch news reporting is very much at risk.
Except you’ve never actually read “state news agencies of dictatorial countries”. They also report scandals when they happen, it’s the news and they report the news. But they, like your country’s state media, will never do any meaningful investigative journalism and will especially never challenge the status quo.
State media not reporting on their own state corruption would completely undermine the feeling of democracy. The problem is how often they undercover corruption scandals. Reporting on things that are already public is thbe bare minimum.
It depends. The likes of Al Jazeera, the Qatari state funded news network is absolutely fearless in its international coverage but doesn't cover Qatar at all so far as I can tell.
[“editorial independence”](http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31100000/Lucille-Winking-animated-gif-arrested-development-31133148-245-245.gif)
"editorial independence"
BBC is not state financed??? but but it's the national broadcasting comp
You see, the money actually comes from the people paying their TV licenses, so it's totally different /s
pay your tv lisemce or the queen will take your soul
I’m seeing a lot of criticism for NPR but no suggestions for acceptable alternatives for getting news. Which news outlets do you use?
NPR bright to you by Amazon. Here's some quirky stories about how silly and cool Daddy Bezos is!!
[A quick Google search of NPR Amazon](https://www.google.com/search?q=NPR+Amazon&oq=NPR+Amazon&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l8.4241j0j4&client=ms-android-cricket-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1) Shows a dozen negative articles from this year alone. Whenever they do run an article about Amazon, they always state that Amazon is one of their sponsors.
What does this mean? (Im dumb)
We can measure the ratio of true things vs false things said by any given news organization, and NPR is the most reliably true. Way on the other end, the top 10 least reliably true are all explicitly conservative news outlets.
This is a leftist sub, not a liberal sub. No “liberal” or “conservative” media is reliable
Yep. NPR seems to be focused more on unbiased reporting, which is why they rate the highest on factually true information, and is why the right loves to call them leftist. Reality has a leftist bias.
[удалено]
The BBC budget has been cut for reporting on government wrongs, additionally the BBC has sunk stories at the request of the crown lol.
>It's about whether those financial resources are used to influence editorial decisions. So the thing that happens in each and every media outlet both privately and publicly owned. Do yourself a favor and check out Michael Parenti's inventing reality
my ass
[удалено]
[удалено]
Jeez louweeez, did RT make this meme? 🤦♂️
>control over editorial content You didn’t underline the actually important part
It’s actually so incredibly bad
Wait but if we are being good faith about this isn't there a real difference between the two? As in is clear that the BBC or NPR is litearlly the state's media channel, whereas for channels that claim to be independent but are actually state propaganda, like RT for example, there is a layer of plausible deniability that the firms have which can be useful to be exposed. SHould this be the resposnbiilty of twitter? idk. is the statement incorrect? not really
It’s so tiresome how conspiratorial American Lefties get about news outlets. It’s naive. All the folks too radical to listen to NPR. All the folks too quick to defend them. Neither of you are cool. And you both got all your politics from mainstream television, books you bought on Amazon, and fuckin Reddit. All news sources should be scrutinized and all mainstream outlets should be engaged with in order to stay informed. No one at the New York Times or The Washington Post is getting jailed for radical journalism, and nothing they publish was written in the apolitical vacuum of deep space. Both can be true.
r/Im14andthisisdeep
That’s this whole sub. Buncha LARPers.
I mean, NPR is probably the most private "public radio" on the planet. it's truly not that closely affiliated with the state the way that BBC or Al-Jazeera are.
"There is no information war in Ba Sing Se."
Do you have a template for those conspiracy theorist doges? I think they're neat.
Hey OP, love the flair; just noticed it.
I have a question, how is the BBC state affiliated media?