Comment on Russia, China, Iran state media see boost on X after removal of ‘state-affiliated’ labels

mayo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Pxtl@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Other way around. Musk’s backers wanted the state media label gone, so he applied it to legit sources so it would be destroyed by the outcry.

  source

  • zephyreks@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Musk wasn’t wrong in applying the state media tag to NPR/BBC/CBC. At the end of the day, they are funded by the state.

    source

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Less than 1% of NPR's budget comes from the state. At that rate SpaceX's press releases should get the same label because way more than 1% of their revenue comes from the state.

      source
    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      There’s a difference between state-funded and partisan state media. And technically all major newspapers in Canada get some funding from the government, for example.

      source

      • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        They didn’t label e.g. DW, which very much is state-fundend, not public, media. They’re not even allowed to broadcast within Germany: Not only is it state TV, on top of that it’s federal state TV. Broadcasting in Germany is prerogative of the states, the federation doesn’t get a single say.

        Disclosing ownership/financing structures of media outlets is never a bad thing. DW is in every way whatsoever Germany’s foreign propaganda outlet, it has some very clear editorial lines aligning it 110% to German foreign policy. That it also has better journalistic integrity than the BBC not to speak of Radio Liberty or any large privately-financed broadcaster is another topic.

        source
      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        State funding describes a conflict of interest, whether perceived or actual.

        source

        • -> View More Comments