Mistake
Member
I didn’t mean to say they were “state run.” I know NPR is not the RT of the US. Just wanted to point out government funding is still concerning for a media organization. Look at what is happening to canada
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
- Status
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Got ya, if I mischaracterized your statements I am sorry.
But Musk is obviously trying to suggest that NPR is state-run - he's trying to paint in that light in a snide way IMO. So in my mind if one agrees with him then they are pretty much parroting his disingenuous sentiment, even if unintentionally.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
That still doesn't make it state media. They STILL got that same funding when Trump was president... All media has bias. Even the ones who say they're fair and balanced or neutral. They just aren't being run by the government nor unable to criticize the administration.
As I said... Your argument has no legs.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I would also point out that corporate-funded media also has its own biases and concerns as well. See the prophetic analysis from Manufacturing Consent or Amusing Ourselves to Death.
A mix of both, along with independently funded media is good for checks and balances.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
I just let the people in the tv tell me what to be angry about. 
Last edited:
RAÏSanÏa
Member
What is happening to Canada?
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
State affiliated does not mean state run. Those aren't the same, and if they want to avoid those sort of associations, they can stop taking government money.
They deserve the state affiliated label, but then again so do a lot of others. And others probably deserve it more. That means it's being selectively applied, and that more than anything else makes twitter worthy of criticism here.
Now that is a tremendously stupid decision.
Last edited:
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
I think that label should exist (youtube already does that) but the fact it's very unevenly applied smells very wrong.
BBC is not labeled as state run. My country's national tv channel isn't labeled and so on.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
funkygunther
Banned
Friendship ended with Matt Taibbi. Now catturd2 is my best friend.
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
Some good exchanges about this interview today, largely making the same points that I did earlier in the thread. Yes, it's good to point out errors, but it's not right to use those errors to dismiss all substance of the reporting. Modern cable journalists would much rather push tribalism than have a substantive discussion.
At the same time, I can agree that Taibbi should be acknowledging the conflicts of interest and hypocrisy of Musk when it comes to free speech in other countries. And if Musk is perhaps now cutting ties with Taibbi for who knows what reason*, it seems refusing to criticize Musk may have not really mattered either way.
* I'm guessing this is the reason. And I'm glad I've been critical of Musk all along when he's done dumb things, because I'd hate to be someone who had to try and find a reason to defend this:
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Matt not being prepared to talk about the topic that he himself requested to be on the show about is not a good look.
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
"Potentially harmful" remains peak social media company stupid. It was stupid when old twitter did it with the New York Post, and it's stupid now. Only now it's stupid and hypocritical.
I can also see wanting to do something to block Mastodon links as it's a direct competitor, but screwing over every independent journalist on substack and acting like you're all for freedom of speech is just absurd. I hope everyone is going to be critical of this one.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
I doubt it. In this thread, there's some who don't see Musk doing anything stupid or bad. He's a Paragon of light.
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
Sorry if I was vague. By "everyone," I didn't mean everyone this forum or the internet. I meant a lot of the same journalists and individuals who do actually care about the twitter files, and have been supporting him a lot on other issues. He WILL hear that this was stupid from the people who hate everything he does. He needs to hear that this is stupid from people who like a lot of the things he does.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
No, that was my point. Too many people who are on his political side won't see anything he does as wrong or stupid. Like some in this thread. I was using some members as an example of that. Just like there's people who don't see anything stupid about certain people on the #OtherSide ...
Henry Panic
Banned
Oh was this thread made before he admitted that poll was fake to trap bots?
Or at least that's what I heard.
Or at least that's what I heard.
funkygunther
Banned
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
Musk has said all along that he'd only be at Twitter for a while, until he found a replacement. I hear he has plans to give out five golden tickets to lucky children, and one of them will become the new owner of twitter.
But seriously, he has things to do at Tesla. He'll still own twitter, but he does plan to find someone else to run it for him. The poll never had a specific date tied to it, making it pretty pointless overall.
Thaedolus
Gold Member
The freeze peaches guy is blocking anyone from favoriting or retweeting Substack’s tweet. So you can be a racist or hateful piece of shit and get unbanned, but censored for being critical of Twitter, and NPR is considered state-affiliated media putting it on the same level as RT.
Absolute fucking clown world Elon subscribed to. And yes, he has every right to be a massive hypocrite and do this to his own platform.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
You really just shouldn't trust the entire concept; it's only human what Musk did with ElonJet for instance, but he loudly proclaimed he took the concept of free speech so seriously that he specifically said he wouldn't ban that account.
He’s just repeatedly and loudly contradicted his free speech mantra. Unbanning a bunch of edge lords doesn’t make you a free speech absolutist.
Slicker than your average
Banned
Elon continuing to prove the eternal cuck that he is.
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
Good to see! The whole time, it really just seemed like a more elaborate comments section integrated into substack, so it seemed crazy to be making such a big deal out of it in the first place. Elon needs to stop with the knee-jerk reactions. They're not doing him any favors.
Vicetrailia
Member
Elon is the shittiest CEO that I have ever witnessed. Tesla would likely be way further ahead if all he did was raise money for them and never ran the company. He’s garbage, but it teaches you truly how powerful being first to the market really is.
Last edited:
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Just in time to spread lies and misinformation ahead of Ukraine's counter offensive.
www.pravda.com.ua
Twitter lifts restrictions on Russian government accounts
GETTY IMAGES Twitter has lifted restrictions on accounts linked to the Russian government that were put in place last April after the full-scale Russian invasion.
www.pravda.com.ua
funkygunther
Banned
state run, state affiliated, government funded…whatever, there’s no point in pedantry when the entire reason the labels exist doesn’t extend beyond “duh gubment bad”
Edit, so "state affiliated" just became "government funded". Meh. Maybe the label will change again next week.
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
The government is the state, isn't it? People fund it with taxes and they have no choice for their money to not go to the BBC, right? You can't be "independent of the government" while also taking their money. It will always raise questions and create a conflict of interest.
[edit] And it seems community notes is calling BS on the incorrect information that you're posting here:
Last edited:
People can opt out of paying, that's a common misconception about the BBC, however this tag lumps it into the same category as Russian and Chinese government controlled media, which is a clear indication they're trying to dilute the term so it's not as bad.
funkygunther
Banned
Regardless of how it’s funded (without the license fee there’d be no BBC News), the BBC is absolutely state media, public broadcasting, etc etc…that’s its entire purpose
Last edited:
RAÏSanÏa
Member
It's about understanding the nuances involved in the amount of independence for journalists and journalism standards for evaluation. Government funding removes the profit incentive for news and the need to serve corporate masters and their entrenched interests.
It's appearing that a pattern to starting form from his decisions to help dispel misdirection on his objective.
It's appearing that a pattern to starting form from his decisions to help dispel misdirection on his objective.
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
It's nice that people can opt out, and I wish the US did more of that sort of thing, but it's still compromises their reporting to take money from the people they're supposed to be criticizing.
RAÏSanÏa
Member
Are you talking about when Lisa LaFlamme was fired?
Last edited:
Tams
Member
Don't talk about stuff you know shit about.
BBC World Service is the part of the BBC that is government funded.
The rest is funded by the BBC licence fee that is a decided by government, but not collected by it. And it is not mandatory, as you can not pay it if you don't consume BBC content, so it is not a tax.
Trust Twitter/Muskites to not be able to understand something slightly complex.
The Government is Right Wing, the BBC produce Left Wing content, only the news and political department could be considered right leaning.
thefool
Member
That's not for twitter to decide.
What is important for users to know is that BBC is funded through a tax (https://web.archive.org/web/20110309172129/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cpst0106.pdf) and its economically classified in the public sector as part of the Central Government (https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/...troductiontoeconomicstatisticsclassifications).
I understand we live in an era where some people try to distort what words mean, but its important to not let loonies take control of the asylum.
Last edited:
So do you think the BBC is in the same class as Russian and Chinese controlled media?
thefool
Member
Depends of how “class” is defined. Twitter is not alluding to political interference or editorial control, its categorizing it under common public sector labels.
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Being publicly funded removes a media organization's need for profit motive or to be beholden to corporate interests. Show some specific examples of bias in publicly funded news organizations if you're going to keep making incendiary claims. Publicly funded news sources are notoriously the least biased and most comprehensive and accurate in their reporting. This is why authoritarians like Musk and those he's catering to dislike them so much.
Just admit when you're wrong. It's OK. In fact it's healthy and good for discourse, and will help you expand your horizons so you can stop attempting to always be right regardless of how painfully wrong you are.
Edit: it's hilarious that you keep harping on about bias where none exists, while we can easily look at non-publicly funded news sources and immediately observe biases. E.G. Fox News, MSNBC, Vice, and on, and on, and on
Last edited:
The label was previously used for Government Controlled Media, isn't it curious that they're applying this label to other at the same time they're allowing a load of Russian media back on the platform?
funkygunther
Banned
damn, let the poor guy breathe
anyway there are plenty of examples of BBC being biased towards the ruling government:
here they are discussing a BBC journalists sloppy reporting against the opposition party (Labour)
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
The mock irreverence might be interesting if it was actually clever, there was a point, and it wasn't being attempted by a billionaire. It's impossible to be a rebel when you're the 0.5%.
Oh you zany Monopoly man.
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
That's not really how I think of this. You avoid accepting money from the people you're reporting on because of a conflict of interest that no one could possibly be able to prove outside of having a time machine. People don't even know themselves. I'm not suggesting people who take government money think of it as a payoff or anything of the sort. That's why ethical guidelines exist, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
But I'm also not saying BBC reporting is unethical or unprofessional. I'm saying that taking money from those they're supposed to criticize creates a potential conflict of interest. I was just critical of Musk for applying the label so selectively and with his own bias, so I feel I'm being consistent here.
I've not seen Musk make an effort to permanently remove people from his platform, and if that happens I'd disagree with it. You use the word authoritarian, but I believe you're the one who wants certain people and opinions to not be allowed on social media. Correct me if I'm wrong. I disagree with all of that, and welcome Musk being criticized when it comes to his ties with China and such.
I was honestly a bit surprised to see a reply from you. I figured you blocked me when you never answered my Iraq example, which I still think is one of the strongest modern examples of why government censorship, even in the US, is not a good thing. None the less, I don't want you to "admit" that you're wrong. It's not my place to tell you that you're wrong about anything. It's up to you to decide how you feel, of course. I would rather explain why I have the views I do, and challenge your own views, and agree to have my views challenged in return.
I believe open but respectful disagreement is what is best for discourse. I don't expect you to change your mind about anything, but that's not because I view you as stubborn or anything. Why would you change your mind about deeply held beliefs? Ideally, an exchange between two people with very different worldviews should result in each of them better understanding one another. That's where value in debate is found, IMO.
I'm not harping on about bias when it comes to the BBC being labeled. I don't even think that I mentioned it.* Everyone is biased. It's nice that Musk can be found here saying that BBC doesn't seem that biased, but it's not really about bias to me. Just another place where I disagree with Musk.
It's just about human nature, and if you take money from someone, your reporting about them is likely to change in ways you don't even realize. That can be true when it comes to funding, and that can be true when it comes to advertising. But I don't at all think media should be labeled due to bias. How would you even measure that sort of thing? How would you apply that fairly? How could you be sure you were doing so?
* It was easy enough to check. Interestingly enough, I used the word bias only once over the last few pages. I used it to defend old twitter and criticize government intervention regarding speech. To quote myself, "For the most part, it was the government telling them that they need to censor people that resulted in the worst of it, and not ideological bias."
Thaedolus
Gold Member
We’ve all been teenagers who think we came up with a funny joke, so people should think we’re funny if we tell it, but everyone thinks it’s dumb, but instead of just moving on we insist it’s funny and try to explain it or retell until people think you’re really funny, but instead they’re like “dude you’re retarded…”
This kinda makes me sad.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Maybe it's more of a mockery of the social media paradigm and not taking shit so damned seriously like every self important twat on SM platforms do, more often than not.
Last edited:
- Status