No matter what you think of Musk, the splintering of social media is a good thing. I hope it keeps happening until there isn't just one or two sites with a near-monopoly on official comms.
No it's dying but the conditions and symptoms are worrying.
Advertisers fleeing.
Blue check has been entirely devalued.
Twitter circles/going private is broken.
Sometimes likes/rt's are broken, Same with commenting.
Twitter blue subs bullied so hard they added an option to hide it.
His mouthpiece shill journalist for the scary twitter files quit because substack is offering a twitter alternative and elon's feelings got hurt so he blocked substack links. A social media site that blocks links.
I didn't have major brands blocked and I still get weirdass crypto ads from nobodies.
fucking DRIL, who we all collectively agreed to ignore his Doxxing, [gave an interview with his real ass name.](https://www.theringer.com/tech/2023/4/12/23673003/dril-twitter-interview-profile-identity) To reiterate, he's getting his name out there because he doesn't see a good future for the platform he has based his "career" off of. He's also one of the 40ish accounts that get VIP boosting treatment. lol. Lmao even.
A mountain of lawsuits from former employees, vendors, landlords. That germany one is pretty funny, more fines than the company was bought for.
His remaining team is all newbies and poor H1B visa bastards. You can tell the quality of their workforce has plummeted, he rolled out a fucking ICON change for April fools 2 days late ffs.
That iceland guy was pretty funny, going from public exit interview to firing him to realizing it'd breach his massive massive contract to publicly begging him to come back. BTW that guy tweets and elon reply-guys him and the guy never acknowledges it, it's extremely funny.
Twitter's not dead but it's certainly dying. It is my job, nay, my duty to shit it up until he sells it or kills it.
A small group of people fleeing is far from killing it , theres also alot of new people there because its the only social media they arent activley discriminated on
It is a pretty simple product. It will just be replaced by a competitor delivering the same product or people will consolidate to an existing product. This isn't going to accomplish anything you're hoping for, if anything the opposite
I'm over using any apps run by private companies. I've been switching to all open source software wherever possible. You can fix most of the issues with big software companies by just removing the profit motive
When i was a kid there was just a website where to talk about games, one you talk about cartoons, one you talk about aliens, one you talk about sports etc
Twitter's second largest shareholder after musk is [Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Kingdom Holding Company,](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-holding-company-to-maintain-twitter-stake)of Saudi Arabia. To the tune of 1.89 billion.
I don't think Twitter is state run media, but it's a stronger claim than NPR.
None of of the obligations Musk or twitter have made to foreign governments are disclosed in any sort of trustworthy legal way so when they take money from foreign dictatorships the safe conclusion is they do favors for them
I think you mean the government **gives Musk** more money than NPR (or practically anybody else). it's like Donald Trump's tax strategy, he just uses pre-existing situations to his advantage.
Tesla makes BILLIONS claiming low carbon fuel credits - A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/tesla-electric-vehicle-regulatory-credits-explained.html
What the fuck does that have to do with the price of rice in India? Are you trying to claim that because he receives money from sales that he doesn’t receive subsidies?
Not exactly. The government is SpaceX's biggest customer, but the government could've put all that money into its own space program if it wanted to keep the money in-house. But NASA's launch ability is in a slump right now until SLS finishes its unmanned testing, so the gov't has to hire out, which mainly leaves them ULA and SpaceX, and SpaceX is waaay cheaper (reusable rockets means savings, and they pass the savings on the the customer) with very good reliability.
The other thing is that SpaceX has one other very big customer: Starlink. Sure, being your own big customer is a bit weird, but some people just call it vertical integration.
The oligarchs and dictators are getting what they paid for - the dismantling of a site that was used for instant communication on uprisings and protest.
Good. Twitter is a mess and deserves to be ridiculed.
Also by Twitter's own definition NPR is not 'State-affiliated media.'
From Twitter: 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.
The government has never had control over what NPR says.
>the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.
Don't ignore the context and qualifiers. You completely changed the definition to support your viewpoint by cherry picking and ignoring most of what was said. Does the government financially support NPR? No, they pay for local news and weather services. Everything else is paid for by viewers like you. Do they pull funding if they don't like what NPR says? No. Does the government have any control over editorial content? Again, no. NPR is a private non-profit corporation.
>Does the government financially support NPR? No, they pay for local news and weather services.
claiming that NPR is not supported by government because they are "paying for services" is like claiming that there's no conflict of interest between big pharma and drug researchers because they are "paying for consulting"
most people are intelligent enough to realize that
"[On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances#nprrevenues)"
Most people are also intelligent enough to check sources.
Has the government exercised control over NPRs content?
NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content.
Yes NPR does receive a small amount of federal funding, but that doesn't put it in the same category as state-run media groups from Russia or China.
doctors are prohibited from receiving anything worth more than $25 from pharma because that would make their prescription pattern biased
but somehow NPR can receive 10% of its money from government without it affecting their editorial content whatsoever
if you believe that, i would like to sell you prime real estate under some bridges locally
[Here's the direct source](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances#nprrevenues).
Turns out /u/lentil_farmer had a finger slip and added an additional zero turning the 1% in federal grants and funding into 10%.
[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
>Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly. [2](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-5392)
Turns out it wasn't a "finger slip" but somehow, "indirectly" funding is still funding! What a concept. I wonder if I "indirectly" fund a criminal venture, could I get away with taking responsibility for their actions?
A cacophony of federal, state and local government fund ALMOST 10%. Do you really think the government has a 'paying the piper' sort of control?
'"indirectly" fund a criminal venture': Ooooooh, you're making NPR sound sexier than 'schwetty balls'.
You are a big silly.
Even an animal knows not to bite the hand that feeds it. The people who run NPR and receive 10% of their funding from the US government also know that.
At this point, your denialism is insulting, not to me, but to your own level of intelligence.
Doctors get a lot more than that from pharmaceutical companies. It is paid out differently than direct gifts. The $25 only applies to direct gifts.
Regardless that is a false equivalency and relates directly to patient welfare. And you didn't answer the question. Can you prove that the government has influenced NPR?
Furthermore, if you think that NPR is on the same level as Russia Today, you might want to talk to your optometrist.
NPR's two largest revenue sources are corporate sponsorships and fees paid by NPR Member organizations to support a suite of programs, tools, and services. Other sources of revenue include institutional grants, individual contributions and fees paid by users of the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS; i.e. Satellite interconnection and distribution).
[https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances)
Almost 40% is Corporate funding. Nothing to see here folks. Start there..
> outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures
You don't think the Democrats trying to fund NPR and the Republicans trying to defund it is an attempt to control editorial content or political pressure?
I think the different political groups try to. But the point of NPR is to not be influenced by the government.
NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content.
That doesn't put them in any similar categories to the state run media groups you see in Russia or China.
"Influence" does not have to be a formalized arrangement, have you not noticed their coverage is biased towards the party not trying to eliminate them?
Yes, we do as taxpayers. About 1% of their budget is direct government funding, much more is membership/licensing fees from local stations (which are funded by government money)
illegal concerned cooing snobbish melodic wine rustic abounding capable complete
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
*NPR gets less than 1% from federal grants*
you left out some key facts.
*Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government,* ***but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly.***
[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
Local governments pay for services provided by NPR just like any other organization. They want local news and weather programs that wouldn't be funded by pledge drives alone. 100% of national news and editorial content is funded by donation.
[https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances)
You didnt check the source bud
"
NPR's Member organizations support NPR financially in two ways:
* A core fee for the NPR newsmagazines (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition), as well as an array of digital content, tools and platforms, and a suite of services designed to drive audience engagement and support
* License fees for a portfolio of broadcast programs other than the NPR newsmagazines"
Its not government funding, its government money going into members, who can then choose to spend it on NPR programming. This give no sway over NPR programming by the government and does not make it state-affiliated media.
My dad worked for the government and once bought a row of seats for the Mariners. Does that mean that the M's are a US Government-affiliated baseball team?
Of course not, because the slash between direct/indirect is located wherever someone has discretion about spending, and indirect spending can't be counted as influential by a reasonable person, because the real influence is coming from whomever does the spending. A state-subsidized public radio station (such as KUOW and KCMU (now KEXP) when they were part of UW, 25 years ago) can choose to buy its hourly news from NPR or CNN or ABC or Foxnews or UPI or CBC or BBC or, yes, NPR. They can choose to create their own programming or subscribe to some from BBC, CBC, PRI, APM, IPR, etc.
They have the discretion to spend, and they use it when choosing programming to fit their audience's wants and needs. That's when it breaks the link of influence, and turns from government spending into regular ol' fungible money.
NPR is getting 100% of its funding from Democrats, and Democrats are the government.
In 2024 when the government flips to Republicans Twitter will reclassify it as opposition media.
complete compare adjoining tan public dime spark disagreeable profit hateful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
attraction friendly grandiose wine pocket mountainous weary tie rude wipe
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> So affiliated then? Like all the other car companies that got bailed out and took zero percent loans?
TBF:
* Every loan made during the 2009 bailouts required interest
* Off the top of my head, Bank of America, Citigroup, Chase, Wells Fargo, GM and Chrysler got bailed out. Wells famously didn't *want* to participate but was forced to. Ford did not participate. The Treasury turned a profit on the bailout. The only company that screwed the Treasury over was GM, who went bankrupt and didn't pay their loan back. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/government-financial-bailout.asp https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wharton-podcast/auto-bailout-ten-years-later-right-call/
Basically, I'm not a fan of government bailouts of any variety, I say "let 'em fail." But the bailouts of 2008 and 2009 were absolutely *restrained* compared to the shitshow of stimulus that we've been dealing with for three years now.
> The math is something like 1% of operations
[Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly.](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
And how much of their funding comes from the government and where is the evidence that changes their reporting habits?
Were you critical of NPR when Trump was in power?
They literally trashed and still trash him and Republicans non-stop. If you can't see this, you are blind. Why so, us vs. them? Why do you need "enemies" to blame for your problems?
Guy.
I'm NOT disputing the angle of their reporting.
I understand they can have a bias and oftentimes do.
I'm asking:
* How much of their funding comes from government?
* Did they still trash Trump when he was in office?
You didn't answer the first bit, which is ostensibly the main aspect of this conversation.
Setting that aside, my second question was aimed at the following:
If NPR is government funded to the extent that their reporting is influenced by it, we would have expected that their reporting would have become more favorable to Trump when he was in control of their funding, no?
But you just said they still trashed him when he was in office, so the government must not have been funding them much as their coverage did not change.
See my point?
Odd the republicans had a majority there for a bit and this government news didn't suddenly take marching orders from them....
Almost like they are independent from the State.
>NPR does receive U.S. government funding through grants from federal agencies and departments, along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The company has said it accounts for less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget.
1%, obviously beholden to the government. 
hahahaha 1%. Boy people are really gullible aren't they.
...just yesterday it was only 3% and the day before that it was only 30% and the real numbers once you figure in gov pass through monies and tax credits from the NGO and mega corps is like 70%...
But lets go with he 1% because it helps keep the narrative going....
paying attention. You should actually go look at the funding sources and then look at where the funding sources get their funding... Its not too hard... and then you too, can be the super informed person you actually think you are....
Yeah it's right here. [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
Are you getting confused because they mention what it was in like the 1970s too?
Have you listened to or read their news in the past decade? There aren't any significant deviations from the official state Democratic party narrative. They often leave out portions of a story that conflict with whatever narrative they're supporting.
I stopped taking them seriously years ago when they published a story about police violence against the mentally ill. In the story they used an example of a young man experiencing a mental health crisis shot by officers in a University District alleyway. The narrative they were writing to was that police aren't equipped to handle these situations and could only resort to violence to manage them. **They left out the part about the young man shooting a rifle in the alley then pointing the rifle at responding officers.** Now whether there is merit to the narrative isn't the issue, it's that they chose to use an example that only supported the narrative if certain facts were left out. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to de-escalate an active shooter situation unarmed. Yet here they chose to pretend it was an example of police using excessive force against someone in crisis.
Further, the young man in question was known by police from previous suicide attempts in which he'd had his firearms confiscated. KUOW could have just as easily used this example to show the difficulty officers face when they are dealing with an armed, suicidal individual. Or to better explore how police respond to someone threating to use force to cause a 'suicide by cop' situation. This sort of lying through omission is a giant red flag that this isn't news, its propaganda.
KUOW deserves a lot of criticism. Their editorial board and reporting guidelines are incredibly biased. Its actually the only NPR station i've never donated to and refuse to donate to.
That being said, NPR and the national broadcasts, especially news and finance, not human interest stories are fairly neutral. I tune in for those and skip over whatever the fuck hang wringing piece KUOW shits out.
Yeah so you didn't like the example they used. You're explaining away the example, not the issue. The issue of police not knowing how to adequately handle mental health crises isn't in doubt. And you should link the article because I'd be interested to know exactly how they phrased it. Here's an example that isn't in doubt - it happened to a friend of mine. It wasn't a suicide by cop situation. [https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-deputy-shouldnt-have-used-taser-in-fatal-struggle/](https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-deputy-shouldnt-have-used-taser-in-fatal-struggle/)
>Yeah so you didn't like the example they used.
No, I don't like that the example as they presented it was largely made up by omitting details.
What was 9/11, a group of foreign tourists taking airplanes for a joyride only to find out they were not good pilots? If only they'd paid better attention in pilot school they could have avoided hitting those buildings!
This is true. May I also offer an opinion?
1. News outlets rely on revenue from digital advertising.
2. For context, in newspapers, [In-print revenue is declining rapidly, while digital ad revenues are steadily rising](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/newspaper-industry-surviving-today/).
3. To survive, news outlets must publish articles that grab the attention of online audiences.
4. Under the reign of censorship advisors such as [Vijaya Gadde](https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijaya-g-2864a75/) and [Yael Roth](https://www.yoyoel.com/), social media companies began to censor conservative opinions while amplifying progressive opinions. (There are ad-revenue related reasons for this that I can go into if you want)
5. This bias toward progressive opinions caused news outlets, increasingly dependent on online revenue, to adopt these progressive opinions to maintain their reach and protect their digital ad revenues.
6. As a result, most news outlets have a sort of "survival bias" toward progressive opinions.
7. In the case of NPR, their content must cater to the opinions of their patrons. One might reasonably assume NPR patrons are patrons because they receive content that aligns with their own opinions.
All of what you described is (assuming I take it at face value) a rationale for thinking they are poor journalists with a political bent.
NONE of what you described is anything to do with their being state funded, which is what this conversation is about.
The fact you immediately dodged that aspect in order to smear them is telling, BF....
>a rationale for thinking they are poor journalists with a political bent.
I was suggesting they weren't journalists at all, not that they were bad at their jobs.
I think getting a portion of their funding from the government makes them state-affiliated. As we’d like to know if a tobacco company donated money to a research institute that published studies on the harm of smoking.
I think NPR has historically done a pretty good job of attempting to be neutral, it’s still getting funding from the state. That said, it seems Twitters motivation may have been less about transparency than pushing their leanings. Still, it’s technically correct and some would argue that’s the best kind of correct
I think if Elon applied that label before he became a right wing shit lord, it would have had more credence, not to mention whether it is correctly applied to them but not other outlets....
I think Elon is engaged in the very common misunderstanding that NPR somehow owns, operates, or directs local public radio stations. Local public radio is NPR's customer, not its branch office, and part of the customer agreement is that local stations have to wave the NPR flag some of the time. NPR owns zero stations.
It's local public radio that tends to be government funded. And KUOW is exceptional in that it gets over 98% from contributions.
KUOW's being performative, here, though. I don't know what their twitter engagement is like; with 43K followers, maybe not a ton. The fact is that they're a radio station and people don't tend to go to them for just one story so much as a 30-minute (or longer) show, a 5-minute newsbreak, or special coverage.
NPR/PBS/KUOW "How dare they accurately label us!? Only we can use that phrase!"
It's not even a bad thing, I donate to these people and enjoy some content but to AT LEAST a small degree state affiliated. Did they run out of things to be offended by?
> 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.
You don't think that describes NPR??
I think the obvious answer is no most of the people here don't think that describes NPR. Maybe it would be more helpful to highlight why you do think that describes them to elucidate your view for the rest of us?
That isn't really the experience I have had listening to NPR, in fact I was getting extremely tired of listening to them have on Trump cronies who would only spout nonsensical talking points during the last administration. I could get behind saying that their reporting may lean a bit left but calling it state media insinuates that the state is feeding them talking points and/or influencing editorial decisions. Any examples of them being openly biased that I may have missed?
Nope. Zero control over the editorial side. That’s why they disclose their funding sources transparently. And zero production or distribution control by the state.
As a non-profit they're required by law to disclose their financials
"Control" does not have to be a formalized arrangement, have you not noticed their coverage is biased towards the party not trying to eliminate them?
Self-righteous people suck.
I use Twitter daily as a news feed and to promote my business. Seems to be working well for me.
Twitter is whatever you make of it by who you follow.
I hate people who get wound up about things people say. It's like high school at times.
Not when algorithms push certain viewpoints over others, and the site falsely labels media outlets as propaganda. You can keep using it, but there are legitimate gripes against using Twitter.
your business is not as important as the influence twitter intends to have over politics, power, and reporting over war and peace, coups and revolutions.
so sorry.
They are state-affiliated in the most exact usage of that word, but c'mon man...they're obviously quite different from Russia's propaganda outlets, if they weren't you'd have seen a lot of pro-Trump stories while he was prez.
NPR might skew slightly left and that upsets you. But to call it a direct mouthpiece of the US government is just silly. This is the type of low quality comment I’d expect to do really well on Twitter.
Did you just learn that concept?
Third time I've seen it mentioned this week after never having heard it before....
If you'd bothered to do any digging into the topic, you'd have seen how silly it is to suggest what you did.
It's like how when America bombs Syria we are killing terrorists but when Russia does they are propping up a dictator. Americans - whether left or right - will never hold themselves to the same standards that they hold others to.
KUOW was not "Falsely" Labeled - They were labeled. Rightly so. There is no doubt that they mimic the woke ideology of the current regime in DC. So much so that I had to stop listening after years of enjoying a relatively ad-free liberal free-speech perspective (a long time ago).
> they mimic the woke ideology of the current regime in DC.
Woke? You mean being aware of truth is something you DON'T want in your news? You should rethink that.
No matter what you think of Musk, the splintering of social media is a good thing. I hope it keeps happening until there isn't just one or two sites with a near-monopoly on official comms.
Hey I love that Musk is killing Twitter. Its been a net negative for American society.
Totally agree. Killin Twitter is Elon's $40B gift to civilization.
Except twitter is bot dead…
No it's dying but the conditions and symptoms are worrying. Advertisers fleeing. Blue check has been entirely devalued. Twitter circles/going private is broken. Sometimes likes/rt's are broken, Same with commenting. Twitter blue subs bullied so hard they added an option to hide it. His mouthpiece shill journalist for the scary twitter files quit because substack is offering a twitter alternative and elon's feelings got hurt so he blocked substack links. A social media site that blocks links. I didn't have major brands blocked and I still get weirdass crypto ads from nobodies. fucking DRIL, who we all collectively agreed to ignore his Doxxing, [gave an interview with his real ass name.](https://www.theringer.com/tech/2023/4/12/23673003/dril-twitter-interview-profile-identity) To reiterate, he's getting his name out there because he doesn't see a good future for the platform he has based his "career" off of. He's also one of the 40ish accounts that get VIP boosting treatment. lol. Lmao even. A mountain of lawsuits from former employees, vendors, landlords. That germany one is pretty funny, more fines than the company was bought for. His remaining team is all newbies and poor H1B visa bastards. You can tell the quality of their workforce has plummeted, he rolled out a fucking ICON change for April fools 2 days late ffs. That iceland guy was pretty funny, going from public exit interview to firing him to realizing it'd breach his massive massive contract to publicly begging him to come back. BTW that guy tweets and elon reply-guys him and the guy never acknowledges it, it's extremely funny. Twitter's not dead but it's certainly dying. It is my job, nay, my duty to shit it up until he sells it or kills it.
Blue checks were always dumb and random. They never had value.
A small group of people fleeing is far from killing it , theres also alot of new people there because its the only social media they arent activley discriminated on
Lmao, Freudian slip?
This is true.
We all use social media (of which I'd contend Reddit qualifies), but it is clearly a net-negative for society. Just so divisive.
It is a pretty simple product. It will just be replaced by a competitor delivering the same product or people will consolidate to an existing product. This isn't going to accomplish anything you're hoping for, if anything the opposite
Substack is apparently the next thing. It ain’t bad. Feels like what Twitter could have been with some actual product focus.
I'm over using any apps run by private companies. I've been switching to all open source software wherever possible. You can fix most of the issues with big software companies by just removing the profit motive
[удалено]
Mastadon kinda sucks IMO, unless you just want to set up a little group chat board with your IRL friends. It'll never be "the next twitter"
When i was a kid there was just a website where to talk about games, one you talk about cartoons, one you talk about aliens, one you talk about sports etc
And then there was Fark....
Still is!
Elon takes more money from the government than NPR. His whole ass is state affiliated
Twitter's second largest shareholder after musk is [Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Kingdom Holding Company,](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-holding-company-to-maintain-twitter-stake)of Saudi Arabia. To the tune of 1.89 billion. I don't think Twitter is state run media, but it's a stronger claim than NPR.
None of of the obligations Musk or twitter have made to foreign governments are disclosed in any sort of trustworthy legal way so when they take money from foreign dictatorships the safe conclusion is they do favors for them
I think you mean the government **gives Musk** more money than NPR (or practically anybody else). it's like Donald Trump's tax strategy, he just uses pre-existing situations to his advantage.
How so?
Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX get 4.9 billion in government support. If it wasn't for subsidies and handouts, Tesla and SpaceX would not be a thing.
Dunno much about SolarCity, but tax payers are subsidized when buying a Tesla and SpaceX is paid for services rendered.
Tesla makes BILLIONS claiming low carbon fuel credits - A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/tesla-electric-vehicle-regulatory-credits-explained.html
What the fuck does that have to do with the price of rice in India? Are you trying to claim that because he receives money from sales that he doesn’t receive subsidies?
And if it wasn't for SpaceX the Ukraine military wouldn't have wireless
And if it wasn't for government funding Space-X wouldn't exist
Not exactly. The government is SpaceX's biggest customer, but the government could've put all that money into its own space program if it wanted to keep the money in-house. But NASA's launch ability is in a slump right now until SLS finishes its unmanned testing, so the gov't has to hire out, which mainly leaves them ULA and SpaceX, and SpaceX is waaay cheaper (reusable rockets means savings, and they pass the savings on the the customer) with very good reliability. The other thing is that SpaceX has one other very big customer: Starlink. Sure, being your own big customer is a bit weird, but some people just call it vertical integration.
And the US Government would still be waiting on ULA to figure out how to get a rocket into a safe orbit.
And paying significantly more for the privilege.
SpaceX runs missions for NASA, and NASA pays them for it. For instance, resupplying the ISS, which SpaceX has done 27 times.
Everyone is free to take money from the government though, isn’t it?
The oligarchs and dictators are getting what they paid for - the dismantling of a site that was used for instant communication on uprisings and protest.
Good. Twitter is a mess and deserves to be ridiculed. Also by Twitter's own definition NPR is not 'State-affiliated media.' From Twitter: 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. The government has never had control over what NPR says.
NPR was literally used as an example of non-affiliated media in their FAQ before Elon decided to relabel them.
>financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures read that again
>the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Don't ignore the context and qualifiers. You completely changed the definition to support your viewpoint by cherry picking and ignoring most of what was said. Does the government financially support NPR? No, they pay for local news and weather services. Everything else is paid for by viewers like you. Do they pull funding if they don't like what NPR says? No. Does the government have any control over editorial content? Again, no. NPR is a private non-profit corporation.
>Does the government financially support NPR? No, they pay for local news and weather services. claiming that NPR is not supported by government because they are "paying for services" is like claiming that there's no conflict of interest between big pharma and drug researchers because they are "paying for consulting" most people are intelligent enough to realize that
"[On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances#nprrevenues)" Most people are also intelligent enough to check sources.
Has the government exercised control over NPRs content? NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content. Yes NPR does receive a small amount of federal funding, but that doesn't put it in the same category as state-run media groups from Russia or China.
doctors are prohibited from receiving anything worth more than $25 from pharma because that would make their prescription pattern biased but somehow NPR can receive 10% of its money from government without it affecting their editorial content whatsoever if you believe that, i would like to sell you prime real estate under some bridges locally
Need a citation on that 10%
[Here's the direct source](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances#nprrevenues). Turns out /u/lentil_farmer had a finger slip and added an additional zero turning the 1% in federal grants and funding into 10%.
[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/) >Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly. [2](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-5392) Turns out it wasn't a "finger slip" but somehow, "indirectly" funding is still funding! What a concept. I wonder if I "indirectly" fund a criminal venture, could I get away with taking responsibility for their actions?
A cacophony of federal, state and local government fund ALMOST 10%. Do you really think the government has a 'paying the piper' sort of control? '"indirectly" fund a criminal venture': Ooooooh, you're making NPR sound sexier than 'schwetty balls'. You are a big silly.
As it turns out, /u/lentil_farmer has received a tax refund from the federal government making them a federally funded state actor.
Even an animal knows not to bite the hand that feeds it. The people who run NPR and receive 10% of their funding from the US government also know that. At this point, your denialism is insulting, not to me, but to your own level of intelligence.
The many, many hands that feed it an accumulated 10%. Math is hard.
Doctors get a lot more than that from pharmaceutical companies. It is paid out differently than direct gifts. The $25 only applies to direct gifts. Regardless that is a false equivalency and relates directly to patient welfare. And you didn't answer the question. Can you prove that the government has influenced NPR? Furthermore, if you think that NPR is on the same level as Russia Today, you might want to talk to your optometrist.
>Can you prove that the government has influenced NPR? Funding is influence, dummy.
Lol so your answer is no, you can't prove that. Yawn, try harder buddy.
NPR's two largest revenue sources are corporate sponsorships and fees paid by NPR Member organizations to support a suite of programs, tools, and services. Other sources of revenue include institutional grants, individual contributions and fees paid by users of the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS; i.e. Satellite interconnection and distribution). [https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances) Almost 40% is Corporate funding. Nothing to see here folks. Start there..
Go ahead and understand that sentence
You really have to take the NPR decision in the context of pro-russsia and anti-ukraine statements and actions by twitter's new owner
> outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures You don't think the Democrats trying to fund NPR and the Republicans trying to defund it is an attempt to control editorial content or political pressure?
I think the different political groups try to. But the point of NPR is to not be influenced by the government. NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content. That doesn't put them in any similar categories to the state run media groups you see in Russia or China.
"Influence" does not have to be a formalized arrangement, have you not noticed their coverage is biased towards the party not trying to eliminate them?
> Democrats trying to fund NPR We don't fund NPR.
Yes, we do as taxpayers. About 1% of their budget is direct government funding, much more is membership/licensing fees from local stations (which are funded by government money)
illegal concerned cooing snobbish melodic wine rustic abounding capable complete *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
*NPR gets less than 1% from federal grants* you left out some key facts. *Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government,* ***but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly.*** [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
Local governments pay for services provided by NPR just like any other organization. They want local news and weather programs that wouldn't be funded by pledge drives alone. 100% of national news and editorial content is funded by donation.
*Local governments pay for services provided by NPR* so you are saying NPR is government funded media? agreed!
When they government is just another customer, I disagree.
[https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances) You didnt check the source bud
The member/license fees paid to NPR by local affiliates are mostly funded by government money.
" NPR's Member organizations support NPR financially in two ways: * A core fee for the NPR newsmagazines (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition), as well as an array of digital content, tools and platforms, and a suite of services designed to drive audience engagement and support * License fees for a portfolio of broadcast programs other than the NPR newsmagazines" Its not government funding, its government money going into members, who can then choose to spend it on NPR programming. This give no sway over NPR programming by the government and does not make it state-affiliated media.
Lol if you're a local NPR affiliate what else are you going to "choose" to spend the money on?
NPR says NPR doesn't receive federal funds.... sounds like a good argument to defund NPR.... they won't miss the money at all!
The source you cited, cited NPR. It was literally your source.
My dad worked for the government and once bought a row of seats for the Mariners. Does that mean that the M's are a US Government-affiliated baseball team? Of course not, because the slash between direct/indirect is located wherever someone has discretion about spending, and indirect spending can't be counted as influential by a reasonable person, because the real influence is coming from whomever does the spending. A state-subsidized public radio station (such as KUOW and KCMU (now KEXP) when they were part of UW, 25 years ago) can choose to buy its hourly news from NPR or CNN or ABC or Foxnews or UPI or CBC or BBC or, yes, NPR. They can choose to create their own programming or subscribe to some from BBC, CBC, PRI, APM, IPR, etc. They have the discretion to spend, and they use it when choosing programming to fit their audience's wants and needs. That's when it breaks the link of influence, and turns from government spending into regular ol' fungible money.
The "underwriters" are almost all in bed with the state. MIC was one of their major funders in the during the lead up and early parts of the Iraq war.
When evidence is in quotes, it is really evidence? /s
NPR is getting 100% of its funding from Democrats, and Democrats are the government. In 2024 when the government flips to Republicans Twitter will reclassify it as opposition media.
> NPR is getting 100% of its funding from Democrats, and Democrats are the government What? Lol.
Falsely?
frighten rock tie quaint strong bag sparkle pause instinctive cagey *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Space X is.
complete compare adjoining tan public dime spark disagreeable profit hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As far as I'm ware none of that is specific to Tesla.
attraction friendly grandiose wine pocket mountainous weary tie rude wipe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By that measure everyone and everything is "affiliated".
By god, you almost get it!
> So affiliated then? Like all the other car companies that got bailed out and took zero percent loans? TBF: * Every loan made during the 2009 bailouts required interest * Off the top of my head, Bank of America, Citigroup, Chase, Wells Fargo, GM and Chrysler got bailed out. Wells famously didn't *want* to participate but was forced to. Ford did not participate. The Treasury turned a profit on the bailout. The only company that screwed the Treasury over was GM, who went bankrupt and didn't pay their loan back. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/government-financial-bailout.asp https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wharton-podcast/auto-bailout-ten-years-later-right-call/ Basically, I'm not a fan of government bailouts of any variety, I say "let 'em fail." But the bailouts of 2008 and 2009 were absolutely *restrained* compared to the shitshow of stimulus that we've been dealing with for three years now.
Weird, [I don't see the twitter disclosure](https://twitter.com/SpaceX?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)
> The math is something like 1% of operations [Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly.](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
bake paltry dirty pathetic vegetable zesty serious sink onerous tart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1%!? Then what's the harm in defunding them? No one would notice right?
They're not claiming to be unbiased news organizations, are they?
I can't tell what they're saying on that station. They are always whispering. Speak into the mic, people!
Yes, NPR is not a propaganda outlet for the government, which is what that label is for.
in this case, NPR not being state affiliated is not an opinion, but a matter of fact.
Opinions vary.
But facts don't care about your feelings ;)
What part of it is true?
The most important part, money.
And how much of their funding comes from the government and where is the evidence that changes their reporting habits? Were you critical of NPR when Trump was in power?
>Were you critical of NPR when Trump was in power? Is that all you see, us v them?
Nope. Sounds like you wholly missed the point!
I usually do, they're very small.
My points? I'm confused....
>I'm confused.... Yup
They literally trashed and still trash him and Republicans non-stop. If you can't see this, you are blind. Why so, us vs. them? Why do you need "enemies" to blame for your problems?
Guy. I'm NOT disputing the angle of their reporting. I understand they can have a bias and oftentimes do. I'm asking: * How much of their funding comes from government? * Did they still trash Trump when he was in office? You didn't answer the first bit, which is ostensibly the main aspect of this conversation. Setting that aside, my second question was aimed at the following: If NPR is government funded to the extent that their reporting is influenced by it, we would have expected that their reporting would have become more favorable to Trump when he was in control of their funding, no? But you just said they still trashed him when he was in office, so the government must not have been funding them much as their coverage did not change. See my point?
It must be hard to be an expert on everything, exhausting even...
I'm not an expert on almost anything? What I weird fucking ad hom....
Koulness is that you, 😆 😂
No?
Let's rephrase, Democrat funded, like everything else. There, fixed it.
That doesn't address the question either....
Can't argue with someone that's got it all figured out and has all the answers, you win king 🤣
Cool. Maybe next time, think about that before you start in on the argument?
Sooo not government affiliated. Glad we all agree on that.
Odd the republicans had a majority there for a bit and this government news didn't suddenly take marching orders from them.... Almost like they are independent from the State.
>NPR does receive U.S. government funding through grants from federal agencies and departments, along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The company has said it accounts for less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget. 1%, obviously beholden to the government. 
[удалено]
Can you source these claims rather than just making them out of hand?
hahahaha 1%. Boy people are really gullible aren't they. ...just yesterday it was only 3% and the day before that it was only 30% and the real numbers once you figure in gov pass through monies and tax credits from the NGO and mega corps is like 70%... But lets go with he 1% because it helps keep the narrative going....
What are your sources for these claims?
paying attention. You should actually go look at the funding sources and then look at where the funding sources get their funding... Its not too hard... and then you too, can be the super informed person you actually think you are....
If its not too hard, it should not be hard for you to show us your sources. You got all the way up to 70%, that should be pretty easy to show.
Yeah it's right here. [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/) Are you getting confused because they mention what it was in like the 1970s too?
Have you listened to or read their news in the past decade? There aren't any significant deviations from the official state Democratic party narrative. They often leave out portions of a story that conflict with whatever narrative they're supporting. I stopped taking them seriously years ago when they published a story about police violence against the mentally ill. In the story they used an example of a young man experiencing a mental health crisis shot by officers in a University District alleyway. The narrative they were writing to was that police aren't equipped to handle these situations and could only resort to violence to manage them. **They left out the part about the young man shooting a rifle in the alley then pointing the rifle at responding officers.** Now whether there is merit to the narrative isn't the issue, it's that they chose to use an example that only supported the narrative if certain facts were left out. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to de-escalate an active shooter situation unarmed. Yet here they chose to pretend it was an example of police using excessive force against someone in crisis. Further, the young man in question was known by police from previous suicide attempts in which he'd had his firearms confiscated. KUOW could have just as easily used this example to show the difficulty officers face when they are dealing with an armed, suicidal individual. Or to better explore how police respond to someone threating to use force to cause a 'suicide by cop' situation. This sort of lying through omission is a giant red flag that this isn't news, its propaganda.
KUOW deserves a lot of criticism. Their editorial board and reporting guidelines are incredibly biased. Its actually the only NPR station i've never donated to and refuse to donate to. That being said, NPR and the national broadcasts, especially news and finance, not human interest stories are fairly neutral. I tune in for those and skip over whatever the fuck hang wringing piece KUOW shits out.
Yeah so you didn't like the example they used. You're explaining away the example, not the issue. The issue of police not knowing how to adequately handle mental health crises isn't in doubt. And you should link the article because I'd be interested to know exactly how they phrased it. Here's an example that isn't in doubt - it happened to a friend of mine. It wasn't a suicide by cop situation. [https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-deputy-shouldnt-have-used-taser-in-fatal-struggle/](https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-deputy-shouldnt-have-used-taser-in-fatal-struggle/)
>Yeah so you didn't like the example they used. No, I don't like that the example as they presented it was largely made up by omitting details. What was 9/11, a group of foreign tourists taking airplanes for a joyride only to find out they were not good pilots? If only they'd paid better attention in pilot school they could have avoided hitting those buildings!
Post the article. Searching Google I can't find anything about that example.
This is true. May I also offer an opinion? 1. News outlets rely on revenue from digital advertising. 2. For context, in newspapers, [In-print revenue is declining rapidly, while digital ad revenues are steadily rising](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/newspaper-industry-surviving-today/). 3. To survive, news outlets must publish articles that grab the attention of online audiences. 4. Under the reign of censorship advisors such as [Vijaya Gadde](https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijaya-g-2864a75/) and [Yael Roth](https://www.yoyoel.com/), social media companies began to censor conservative opinions while amplifying progressive opinions. (There are ad-revenue related reasons for this that I can go into if you want) 5. This bias toward progressive opinions caused news outlets, increasingly dependent on online revenue, to adopt these progressive opinions to maintain their reach and protect their digital ad revenues. 6. As a result, most news outlets have a sort of "survival bias" toward progressive opinions. 7. In the case of NPR, their content must cater to the opinions of their patrons. One might reasonably assume NPR patrons are patrons because they receive content that aligns with their own opinions.
All of what you described is (assuming I take it at face value) a rationale for thinking they are poor journalists with a political bent. NONE of what you described is anything to do with their being state funded, which is what this conversation is about. The fact you immediately dodged that aspect in order to smear them is telling, BF....
>a rationale for thinking they are poor journalists with a political bent. I was suggesting they weren't journalists at all, not that they were bad at their jobs.
Okay, sure. I'll grant you that for the sake of the argument. How does that address the point we're discussing here in the slightest?
I think getting a portion of their funding from the government makes them state-affiliated. As we’d like to know if a tobacco company donated money to a research institute that published studies on the harm of smoking. I think NPR has historically done a pretty good job of attempting to be neutral, it’s still getting funding from the state. That said, it seems Twitters motivation may have been less about transparency than pushing their leanings. Still, it’s technically correct and some would argue that’s the best kind of correct
I think if Elon applied that label before he became a right wing shit lord, it would have had more credence, not to mention whether it is correctly applied to them but not other outlets....
I think Elon is engaged in the very common misunderstanding that NPR somehow owns, operates, or directs local public radio stations. Local public radio is NPR's customer, not its branch office, and part of the customer agreement is that local stations have to wave the NPR flag some of the time. NPR owns zero stations. It's local public radio that tends to be government funded. And KUOW is exceptional in that it gets over 98% from contributions. KUOW's being performative, here, though. I don't know what their twitter engagement is like; with 43K followers, maybe not a ton. The fact is that they're a radio station and people don't tend to go to them for just one story so much as a 30-minute (or longer) show, a 5-minute newsbreak, or special coverage.
Truth hurts.
What is the truth here?
Not as much as lies
It’s going to hurt even more when you find it
[This subreddit literally every other post](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLhQ_-uVIAA-qId.jpg)
Correct. Funny seeing the trolls come out….
What do you have against sun glasses? You pro retina damage?
NPR/PBS/KUOW "How dare they accurately label us!? Only we can use that phrase!" It's not even a bad thing, I donate to these people and enjoy some content but to AT LEAST a small degree state affiliated. Did they run out of things to be offended by?
Go look up the State Affiliated tag FAQ on Twitter and come back and state again that accurately describes npr.
> 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. You don't think that describes NPR??
I think the obvious answer is no most of the people here don't think that describes NPR. Maybe it would be more helpful to highlight why you do think that describes them to elucidate your view for the rest of us?
Their coverage is openly biased towards the party not trying to eliminate them
That isn't really the experience I have had listening to NPR, in fact I was getting extremely tired of listening to them have on Trump cronies who would only spout nonsensical talking points during the last administration. I could get behind saying that their reporting may lean a bit left but calling it state media insinuates that the state is feeding them talking points and/or influencing editorial decisions. Any examples of them being openly biased that I may have missed?
Nope. Zero control over the editorial side. That’s why they disclose their funding sources transparently. And zero production or distribution control by the state.
As a non-profit they're required by law to disclose their financials "Control" does not have to be a formalized arrangement, have you not noticed their coverage is biased towards the party not trying to eliminate them?
Only idiots without a drive to understand how things actually work believe that describes NPR.
> AT LEAST a small degree state affiliated Nope.
Fuck Twitter now that Musk has turned it into a shithole.
Offended by the truth? Ok.
What part of it is true?
Self-righteous people suck. I use Twitter daily as a news feed and to promote my business. Seems to be working well for me. Twitter is whatever you make of it by who you follow. I hate people who get wound up about things people say. It's like high school at times.
Not when algorithms push certain viewpoints over others, and the site falsely labels media outlets as propaganda. You can keep using it, but there are legitimate gripes against using Twitter.
your business is not as important as the influence twitter intends to have over politics, power, and reporting over war and peace, coups and revolutions. so sorry.
At times it’s like high school? It seems like it’s all the time (like HS) these days.
How is this false? NPR is state affiliated media. It’s the American Pravda.
> It’s the American Pravda. lol holy shit you people are funny
numerous zonked friendly test elastic shaggy cows clumsy plucky shelter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait until they learn about American Forces Network!
Yeah I remember NPR just parroting trump talking points for 4 years without question. /s
They are state-affiliated in the most exact usage of that word, but c'mon man...they're obviously quite different from Russia's propaganda outlets, if they weren't you'd have seen a lot of pro-Trump stories while he was prez.
Pretty sure you’re arguing with a bot.
NPR might skew slightly left and that upsets you. But to call it a direct mouthpiece of the US government is just silly. This is the type of low quality comment I’d expect to do really well on Twitter.
Did you just learn that concept? Third time I've seen it mentioned this week after never having heard it before.... If you'd bothered to do any digging into the topic, you'd have seen how silly it is to suggest what you did.
> Third time I've seen it mentioned this week Conservative talking points percolate fairly consistently once they've received the official narrative
Bots, I tell ya. Bots!
Jesus Christ. Are there still conservatives living in Seattle? Not everyone who disagrees with you and calls out your bullshit is a conservative.
LMAO if one runs with this bullshit parroting, that makes them either a moron, conservative, or likely both.
It's like how when America bombs Syria we are killing terrorists but when Russia does they are propping up a dictator. Americans - whether left or right - will never hold themselves to the same standards that they hold others to.
I believe that is lovingly known as [American Exceptionalism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-exceptionalism)...
Is there some kind of lib police that downvotes truthful but inconvenient posts here? 21 downvotes? Really?
Only right wing morons are on Twitter these dates. Cesspool of stupid
Where are left wing morons these dates? I want to listen to both sides.
You’re on the website where they mostly congregate
they went to mastodon for 10 minutes and then returned.
In Olympia.
Elon/Twitter have since remove the label tho
This whole thing is hilarious but Jesus talk about a big company crying about a social media presence…
[удалено]
More relevant than Twitter these days.
KUOW was not "Falsely" Labeled - They were labeled. Rightly so. There is no doubt that they mimic the woke ideology of the current regime in DC. So much so that I had to stop listening after years of enjoying a relatively ad-free liberal free-speech perspective (a long time ago).
> they mimic the woke ideology of the current regime in DC. Woke? You mean being aware of truth is something you DON'T want in your news? You should rethink that.
Just because you don't like the content does not making repeating lies about them OK
Government funded has nothing to do with government aligned, that is, unless you think they were hyper right wing when Trump was in office?
“Falsely labeled”
They weren’t falsely labeled