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

• 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

    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      There’s an ocean of difference between “funded by a democratic country and operated through an arm’s length organization” and “funded by a totalitarian dictatorship to be an apparatus of the state”.

      the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron”

      – Dril

      source

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Does that claim remove the existence of conflict of interest?

        source