A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Twitter didn’t say they had government appointed staff. They said they were “state affiliated”. Which you just confirmed as 100% true.
Which implies the presence of government influence like in some authoritarian states. I doubt the US government is dictating their editorial lines.
Just because ‘Statement A’ implies ‘Implication B’ does not make ‘Statement A’ any less true.
If you receive 1% of your overall funding from one organization, that’s a close formal association. It doesn’t automatically mean their reporting is compromised or anything else you might assume comes along with that tag, but that tag is definitely accurate in this case.
Then nearly every industry is state affiliated.
Based on Twitter definitions of state affiliated, govt funded, and public funded, NPR aligns the least with state affiliated and most with publicly funded, right?
Don’t expect right-wing people to actually consider anything other than alternative facts.
Affiliated means close formal or informal association. I think 1% of funding and no government appointed people really doesn’t rise to that standard.
Hard disagree. If you receive 1% of your overall funding from one organization, that’s a close formal association. It doesn’t automatically mean their reporting is compromised or anything else you might assume comes along with that tag, but it definitely does apply in this case.