As seen on Twitter
In: 0
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.
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.
First of all, Twitter’s distinction between the two is a joke.
Second of all, if you want an actual answer:
* Government funded media is paid for by the government of a country (usually with money collected in taxes). That means that it’s likely to toe the government line in its reporting (which may be as mild as “only criticising the government gently” or as extreme as “spreading straight-up propaganda”), as governments can easily apply direct or indirect (“it would be a shame if your budget for next year was cut”) pressure on the media to alter their reporting.
* Publicly funded media is paid for directly by the inhabitants of the country, without going through the government. Publicly funded media is therefore *generally* less prone to being influenced by the government of its country, and is more likely to be unbiased in its reporting, as it’s not beholden to the government for its funding.
However, the line between the two can be blurry, and you have to look at the details. For example, in some countries, the media may be publicly funded, but the government still has the right to appoint its directors. Or you could have government-funded media, but where the government (either by law or by custom) doesn’t interfere in editorial decisions.
Some countries go to extreme lengths to protect publicly funded media from government control (e.g. Germany, which sends an itemised bill for their public media fee to every inhabitant, completely outside of the government’s control, and even has a constitutional provision to ensure the government can’t interfere in public media, either through appointing directors, or withholding funding).
First of all, Twitter’s distinction between the two is a joke.
Second of all, if you want an actual answer:
* Government funded media is paid for by the government of a country (usually with money collected in taxes). That means that it’s likely to toe the government line in its reporting (which may be as mild as “only criticising the government gently” or as extreme as “spreading straight-up propaganda”), as governments can easily apply direct or indirect (“it would be a shame if your budget for next year was cut”) pressure on the media to alter their reporting.
* Publicly funded media is paid for directly by the inhabitants of the country, without going through the government. Publicly funded media is therefore *generally* less prone to being influenced by the government of its country, and is more likely to be unbiased in its reporting, as it’s not beholden to the government for its funding.
However, the line between the two can be blurry, and you have to look at the details. For example, in some countries, the media may be publicly funded, but the government still has the right to appoint its directors. Or you could have government-funded media, but where the government (either by law or by custom) doesn’t interfere in editorial decisions.
Some countries go to extreme lengths to protect publicly funded media from government control (e.g. Germany, which sends an itemised bill for their public media fee to every inhabitant, completely outside of the government’s control, and even has a constitutional provision to ensure the government can’t interfere in public media, either through appointing directors, or withholding funding).
First of all, Twitter’s distinction between the two is a joke.
Second of all, if you want an actual answer:
* Government funded media is paid for by the government of a country (usually with money collected in taxes). That means that it’s likely to toe the government line in its reporting (which may be as mild as “only criticising the government gently” or as extreme as “spreading straight-up propaganda”), as governments can easily apply direct or indirect (“it would be a shame if your budget for next year was cut”) pressure on the media to alter their reporting.
* Publicly funded media is paid for directly by the inhabitants of the country, without going through the government. Publicly funded media is therefore *generally* less prone to being influenced by the government of its country, and is more likely to be unbiased in its reporting, as it’s not beholden to the government for its funding.
However, the line between the two can be blurry, and you have to look at the details. For example, in some countries, the media may be publicly funded, but the government still has the right to appoint its directors. Or you could have government-funded media, but where the government (either by law or by custom) doesn’t interfere in editorial decisions.
Some countries go to extreme lengths to protect publicly funded media from government control (e.g. Germany, which sends an itemised bill for their public media fee to every inhabitant, completely outside of the government’s control, and even has a constitutional provision to ensure the government can’t interfere in public media, either through appointing directors, or withholding funding).
Latest Answers