> As per terms, if you receive money from a govt you are state-affiliated.
Receiving money from a government is neither necessary nor sufficient to qualify as state-affiliated according to Twitter's own definition [0] (emphasis added):
> 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.
So for media to count as state-affiliated the state must have control over editorial content. Receiving funds can be one method by which control could be exerted, but it is insufficient in and of itself to cross the threshold of state control.
Twitter has a definition for what they consider state-affiliated media. NPR doesn't fit this definition. Thus, if they brand them as state-affiliated, they are not going from their own definition, and they must have other reasons.
Why is it acceptable for Twitter to have a definition of state-affiliated media, and then apply the branding to a media organisation that doesn't fit this definition?
Or are you just saying that there isn't a difference between state-affiliated media, and state-funded media?
I'm not arguing semantics in any way. Hypocrisy isn't a semantic problem. You, on the other hand, are literally arguing semantics, since you're ignoring Twitters own definition, and just going by colloquial meanings.
> If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms.
I fully agree, they should be labeled as per Twitter terms. The Twitter terms clearly stated that NPR was not an example of state-affiliated media. It's problematic that Twitter labeled in a way contrary to their terms.
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. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled. We will also add labels to Tweets that share links to state-affiliated media websites.
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. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled.
State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.
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. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled.
State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.
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. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their senior staff may be labeled.
State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.
That's true, but it's also kind of irrelevant. Again, the actual requirement is "exercises control over editorial content", which is different than what GP stated. According to Twitter, if that requirement is not met, then the other items in the list don't matter.
In addition, the definition Twitter gives requires that the items in the list be done in service of the central requirement. In other words, merely having financial resources be provided by the government is not enough for a media organization to qualify as "state-affiliated" - those financial resources must be given to exercise control over editorial content. If control is not exercised over editorial content, then by Twitter's definition it does not matter that the government provides funds to the media organization.
... do you not understand the meaning of what you're quoting?
It clearly says that control can be exercised even through indirect political pressure. It is obviously intended to also apply to situations where there is the superficial appearance of editorial independence but no actual independence.
Not biting the hand that feeds is a common instinct and it definitely affects what stories get published and how.
I'm pretty sure by the way that if someone tried to apply this same line of reasoning to, say, Russia Today, the same people up in arms about this would make the same argument I'm making.
> ... do you not understand the meaning of what you're quoting?
I sure hope I do!
> It clearly says that control can be exercised even through indirect political pressure. It is obviously intended to also apply to situations where there is the superficial appearance of editorial independence but no actual independence.
This is true, but a statement that something can happen is very different from a statement that something does happen.
> Not biting the hand that feeds is a common instinct and it definitely affects what stories get published and how.
It's a nice-sounding generality, but I think there needs to be slightly more in the way of specifics if you want to claim it applies to NPR (or any other organization, really), especially considering the relatively low proportion of funding it receives from the government.
That’s a lot of organizations that are going to need that mark then.
What needs to be marked is “does the government have editorial control of produced content”. Unless you think there’s no difference between government operated news in china or Iran and “radio station that gets an annual grant”
And that gets tricky as well. Many businesses receive pressure from governments and the business in most cases will not be legally obligated to comply, but businesses value money first and know if they cooperate then the government is more likely to be on their side when needed and less likely to get in the way when they are not wanted. AFAIK the only way to know that is occurring would be to intercept all communications.
What happens if you receive government funds and grants in prior years?
Who decides these definitions :)