what the difference is between “government funded media” and “publicly funded media”?

157 views

As seen on Twitter

In: 0

15 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

Are they actually different? Does Twitter have both those designations?

In common parlance, there should be no difference between the two.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Answer: it’s ultimately semantics, but the former tends to refer to media that the government funds for the purpose of promoting its agenda (like RU News), whereas public ally funded media uses tax payer dollars to fund media, without narrative control. NPR is in the latter category, but Fox News wants you to think it’s in the former.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Are they actually different? Does Twitter have both those designations?

In common parlance, there should be no difference between the two.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Are they actually different? Does Twitter have both those designations?

In common parlance, there should be no difference between the two.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Answer: it’s ultimately semantics, but the former tends to refer to media that the government funds for the purpose of promoting its agenda (like RU News), whereas public ally funded media uses tax payer dollars to fund media, without narrative control. NPR is in the latter category, but Fox News wants you to think it’s in the former.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Answer: it’s ultimately semantics, but the former tends to refer to media that the government funds for the purpose of promoting its agenda (like RU News), whereas public ally funded media uses tax payer dollars to fund media, without narrative control. NPR is in the latter category, but Fox News wants you to think it’s in the former.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It depends on whose definitions of those terms are being used, but generally the distinction is about whether a media outlet depends on a state for funding (and has a strong incentive to make sure its editorial judgment aligns with the state’s interests), or whether funding comes from the public in such a way as to incentivize content that serves the public’s interests.

In the United States there is legislation that forbids the U.S. government from directly broadcasting its own propaganda to the U.S. public. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting exists in large part to make sure that any financial support originating from the federal government has as little editorial influence as possible on PBS and NPR, which both rely largely on private donors and audience member support.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It depends on whose definitions of those terms are being used, but generally the distinction is about whether a media outlet depends on a state for funding (and has a strong incentive to make sure its editorial judgment aligns with the state’s interests), or whether funding comes from the public in such a way as to incentivize content that serves the public’s interests.

In the United States there is legislation that forbids the U.S. government from directly broadcasting its own propaganda to the U.S. public. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting exists in large part to make sure that any financial support originating from the federal government has as little editorial influence as possible on PBS and NPR, which both rely largely on private donors and audience member support.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It depends on whose definitions of those terms are being used, but generally the distinction is about whether a media outlet depends on a state for funding (and has a strong incentive to make sure its editorial judgment aligns with the state’s interests), or whether funding comes from the public in such a way as to incentivize content that serves the public’s interests.

In the United States there is legislation that forbids the U.S. government from directly broadcasting its own propaganda to the U.S. public. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting exists in large part to make sure that any financial support originating from the federal government has as little editorial influence as possible on PBS and NPR, which both rely largely on private donors and audience member support.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Elon Musk is capriciously and arbitrarily applying labels and changing how those labels are applied to target news organizations he perceives as his enemies. What they mean, from the perspective of Twitter, is changing based on his whims in an attempt to blur the lines between actual government run propaganda outlets masquerading as news (such as those operated in and controlled by China and Russia), and editorially independent, but receiving public funding either directly (i.e. individual citizens donate) or indirectly (tax money that is then allocated by the government) organizations (such as NPR or the BBC).

Its an incredibly dishonest tactic meant to sew distrust towards organizations that have accurately reported information about Musks many recent scandals and failures as owner of Twitter. Its also extremely hypocritical since Musks companies, particularly Space-X but also Tesla, receive significant amounts of government funding to operate.