Twitter: BBC objects to 'government funded media' label

[tabzer]

Oh no, not one one-thousandth of my taxes! Maybe I'll care after we've eliminated the frivolous spending the lion's share goes to: military bloat and corporate welfare.

£159 or 13,600 yen a year. I doubt you are making 6 figures and are here to gloat about how much money you earn, yet...

Also, you should care about all of it. If you always have to determine a greater enemy that enables complacency, then you are overworking yourself. Not smart. Just stop thinking.

Oligarchs can't be permitted to decide what news we do and don't see.

They are and they do. It also seems that you think that politicians aren't involved in oligarchy based on your previous defense of "NBD" .

Well, "news" is a stretch, but he's interviewed with and shouted out a number of right-wing talking heads. Joe Rogan of course, and then people like Peterson, Kirk, Walsh, Shapiro, etc. He also regularly likes and replies to alt-reich shit.

You said he promoted news outlets as being more credible than the likes of PBS or BBC. That's different than retweeting or liking what someone says. I, on rare occasion, like something you say. I often requote all of your bullshit.

How irrelevant do you desire to be? Can you stop being full of shit and a constant edgelord?

 

[Xzi]

Also, you should care about all of it.

Why? Public radio/television is one of the very few things that actually has a return on investment, like public libraries and parks. With war and corporate welfare it's just a never-ending financial black hole.

They are and they do.

So your non-solution is to give them even more control? Figures.

It also seems that you think that politicians aren't involved in oligarchy based on your previous defense of "NBD" .

I doubt you can find any example of a major political scandal that wasn't reported on by NPR and/or BBC. Politicians have term limits and thus limited influence during their time in government, while oligarchs don't have to worry about either of these things.

You said he promoted news outlets as being more credible than the likes of PBS or BBC.

I said he's trying to bury (or demote) certain outlets and promote others, so you either misremembered or misread.

 

[Taleweaver]

I haven't read most of the thread and can't really care about the drama. But this piece seems to highlight things:

The level of the £159 ($197) annual licence fee - which is required by law to watch live TV broadcasts or live streaming in the UK - is set by the government, but paid for by individual UK households.

So...wtf am I missing here to make this label inadequate? Perhaps something like "citizen funded media" or "public media" might be more accurate, but this really sounds like bitching for the sake of it.

BBC logic: sure, we're funded by obligated payments set by the government, but that doesn't make us government funded.
Me: say...isn't the government itself funded by obligated payments set by the government?
BBC: yes?
Me: so...are you saying that the government isn't government funded either? Heck...do governments even EXIST by that logic?
BBC: ...
BBC: STOP LISTENING TO WHAT I SAY!!!!

 

[tabzer]

I said he's trying to bury (or demote) certain outlets and promote others, so you either misremembered or misread.

Like my friend @Lacius says, put up or shut up.

Find a twitter label that says "reliable news network".

Or even Musk alluding to that there is one.

You post so much irrelevant shit, and I'm tired of catering to you. Make your own topic instead of trying to change every one you visit into an "eat the rich" soapbox. Everyone gets it. We know what you represent. We also know that you are completely helpless in doing anything about it. If I post your profile pic in my sig, will it ward you away?

I don't need an anti-capitalist to school me on ROI, lol.

I'm not obligated to ignore reality and "provide solutions" for you.

Politicians who don't have term limits exist. I shouldn't need to point out that every scandal that isn't promoted by the "public news media" is labelled a conspiracy theory or, presently, "alt-right". I'm gonna call you Epstein from now on.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Jesus Tabzy, I'm gone a few hours and I get a reply and two mentions, you really do care. I don't know how else to spell it out: pretending a billionaire has your best interests at heart is like pretending the stripper is actually into you. Twitter is social media, not a news source or news aggregate, and social media generates profit from disinformation more than anything else.

Twitter is not a news source or news aggregate.

I'm sure he'll be grabbing a juicy tax break from all that value he lost with Twitter too. Point is that he suckles at the government tit multiple times a day, and not even just one of them. If he wants to be taken seriously as an arbiter of what is and isn't "state-affiliated," he needs to either label his own account as such or drop the label altogether and stop pretending he's capable of impartiality on this topic.

Elon needs to label his Twitter account as a state-affiliated news source.

Wut?

Post automatically merged: Apr 15, 2023

Oh no, not one one-thousandth of my taxes! Maybe I'll care after we've eliminated the frivolous spending the lion's share goes to: military bloat and corporate welfare.

i'M aGaInSt cOrPoRaTe WeLfArE!!

Don't you dare touch that taxpayer money going to NPR by force you alt-reich fascist scum!!

I leave for a few weeks and you've managed to get dumber. Congratulations, who knew that was even possible.

 

[Xzi]

Find a twitter label that says "reliable news network".

"You cleared the goalpost, so I'll be moving it now."

You post so much irrelevant shit, and I'm tired of catering to you.

Ditto bud. We get it, you love kissing billionaire ass and imagining everybody else is just as submissive as you are. That doesn't warrant its own thread.

Politicians who don't have term limits exist.

True, permanent positions such as SCOTUS justice are meant to be non-partisan if not outright non-political, but there's no shortage of corruption in the current court. I would say they do qualify as oligarchs at this point, but thankfully they don't have any direct control over outlets like NPR, they can only rule on cases adjacent to it.

Twitter is not a news source or news aggregate.

Then they need to stop pretending to be one.

Elon needs to label his Twitter account as a state-affiliated news source.

Wut?

"Corporate welfare queen" or "taxpayer-funded oligarch" would also be acceptable. If the goal is actually transparency, we're gonna need a lot more labels for a lot more accounts.

i'M aGaInSt cOrPoRaTe WeLfArE!!

Don't you dare touch that taxpayer money going to NPR by force you alt-reich fascist scum!!

You're a total dipshit if you believe that NPR takes even one one-thousandth of the taxpayer money that corporate welfare does. Then again it's never about true fiscal responsibility with you Republicans, it's about "punishing" the groups of people who you think deserve it. You have no policy platforms and present no path forward for this country, which is why the ideology appeals almost exclusively to dying boomers now. So enjoy hitching your wagon to that bus.

 

[tabzer]

he's trying to bury (or demote) certain outlets and promote others

Put up or shut up.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Then they need to stop pretending to be one.


"Corporate welfare queen" or "taxpayer-funded oligarch" would also be acceptable. If the goal is actually transparency, we're gonna need a lot more labels for a lot more accounts.

You obviously didn't see the fallacy of you saying Twitter is not a news source and saying Elon needed to label his account as a state-affiliated news source. Not surprising.

You're a total dipshit if you believe that NPR takes even one one-thousandth of the taxpayer money that corporate welfare does. Then again it's never about true fiscal responsibility with you Republicans, it's about "punishing" the groups of people who you think deserve it. You have no policy platforms and present no path forward for this country, which is why the ideology appeals almost exclusively to dying boomers now. So enjoy hitching your wagon to that bus.

You are forced to argue the amount of taxpayer money goes to NPR.

Nobody is even talking about fiscal responsibility.

I'm old enough to remember when my generation said during the Clinton years that conservatives will die out because it's a party of old people. We were told when Obama got elected that this was the beginning of the end for conservatives. How long is this die off supposed to take?

You are letting the voices in your head get the best of you again. Please seek treatment.

You think you are being witty or bringing some new hot take to the discussion, but you're not. You are just repeating the same tired, old diatribes that's been recycled since the 1960's for every new generation of youth who eventually mature and become more conservative. But this time is different, amirite comrade?

 

[Xzi]

Put up or shut up.

I was talking about the inaccurate label from the beginning. Musk added it because he knew it would drive certain outlets off Twitter and give a negative perception to others. As I stated earlier and as Taleweaver also pointed out, "publicly-funded" would be accurate. "Government-funded" is Musk's way of winking to his audience (alt-right morons).

Lastly, as I've also stated previous, if we're gonna be applying labels to accounts for the sake of fairness and transparency, there's no good reason to stop there. Even if we're just talking about news outlets, there are far more disclosures that should be made about far more of them. First and foremost, outlets like Fox News that have admitted in court their programs are for "entertainment" and not informational should have to note that. Others should have to disclose their owner or funding source. If Twitter insists on going down the path of being a news curator, that is.

 

[tabzer]

I was talking about the inaccurate label from the beginning. Musk added it because he knew it would drive certain outlets off Twitter and give a negative perception to others. As I stated earlier and as Taleweaver also pointed out, "publicly-funded" would be accurate. "Government-funded" is Musk's way of winking to his audience (alt-right morons).

Lastly, as I've also stated previous, if we're gonna be applying labels to accounts for the sake of fairness and transparency, there's no good reason to stop there. Even if we're just talking about news outlets, there are far more disclosures that should be made about far more of them. First and foremost, outlets like Fox News that have admitted in court their programs are for "entertainment" and not informational should have to note that. Others should have to disclose their owner or funding source. If Twitter insists on going down the path of being a news curator, that is.

You still haven't demonstrated how "he's trying to bury (or demote) certain outlets and promote others".

Furthermore, if the government forces people to pay for your product, then the idea of "publicly funded" is objectively more misleading.

The reason I posted this is because I relate to being forced to pay for NHK.

 

[Xzi]

You obviously didn't see the fallacy of you saying Twitter is not a news source and saying Elon needed to label his account as a state-affiliated news source. Not surprising.

It's not a fallacy you moron, I was pointing out the contradiction. If Elon insists on continuing to treat Twitter like a news curator, there will need to be more labels.

How long is this die off supposed to take?

Republicans lost Georgia in 2020 because of it, so there's that. The Republican party of old actually had policy platforms, even if they were just thinly-veiled "give the rich more money" schemes. Now they have nothing but blind fear and hatred, and the only reasons I can't say for sure they'll never win another national election are voter suppression and hackers for hire. COVID has accelerated things a bit, and if DeSantis wins the nomination we can always hope Trump tries to split the vote and puts the final nail in the coffin.

Post automatically merged: Apr 16, 2023

Furthermore, if the government forces people to pay for your product, than the idea of "publicly funded" is objectively more misleading.

You can donate to NPR as a tax write-off, for way more than what little would have gone to them from your taxes anyway. Besides, there's absolutely no public demand to end funding for NPR, save perhaps among the nuttiest fringes of the internet.

The reason I posted this is because I relate to being forced to pay for NHK.

Oh give me a break, Ayn Rand. Is that your national healthcare system which costs almost nothing but gives you near full coverage? I'm sure we don't have an accurate count of exactly how many people in America have died due to a lack of something similar, but I'm also sure that number is extremely high.

 

[tabzer]

You can donate to NPR as a tax write-off, for way more than what little would have gone to them from your taxes anyway. Besides, there's absolutely no public demand to end funding for NPR, save perhaps among the nuttiest fringes of the internet.

I'm not talking about NPR, and there is absolutely public demand to reduce taxes and government spending across the board. Keep up.

Oh give me a break, Ayn Rand. Is that your national healthcare system which costs almost nothing but gives you near full coverage? I'm sure we don't have an accurate count of exactly how many people in America have died due to a lack of something similar, but I'm also sure that number is extremely high.

The forced national health insurance here, that costs me about $200 a month, is another issue. You may think that costs "almost nothing". I *may* think you are an idiot. NHK isn't a healthcare system. It's a "public news" outlet that receives funding in a similar way as BBC--just a *little* bit more transparently. I'd imagine you would dislike them coming to your doorstep to remind you of your legal responsibility to pay them. Yes, they do that. Pay attention.

Maybe the problem here, is that you just don't know what you are talking about. Good thing this was posted. You are going to learn something after all.

I was pointing out the contradiction. If Elon insists on continuing to treat Twitter like a news curator, there will need to be more labels.

You made the contradiction. Do you see Twitter as a news curator or not?

Here's a gift from me to you:

Just post this instead, every time you have an urge to say something.

 

[TraderPatTX]

It's not a fallacy you moron, I was pointing out the contradiction. If Elon insists on continuing to treat Twitter like a news curator, there will need to be more labels.

It's not a contradiction. Elon Musk is not a journalist and does not work for a news company. Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post does not make him a journalist.

Republicans lost Georgia in 2020 because of it, so there's that. The Republican party of old actually had policy platforms, even if they were just thinly-veiled "give the rich more money" schemes. Now they have nothing but blind fear and hatred, and the only reasons I can't say for sure they'll never win another national election are voter suppression and hackers for hire. COVID has accelerated things a bit, and if DeSantis wins the nomination we can always hope Trump tries to split the vote and puts the final nail in the coffin.

Post automatically merged: Apr 16, 2023

Keep the hopium alive.

You can donate to NPR as a tax write-off, for way more than what little would have gone to them from your taxes anyway. Besides, there's absolutely no public demand to end funding for NPR, save perhaps among the nuttiest fringes of the internet.

You can also donate and pay more in taxes. Public funded = government funded.

 

[User154]

Generally I think Musk is a fucking tool and I agree with very little he says and does but I think he has a point with this one.

Regardless of the charter their impartiality is regularly called into question. For almost all of the accusations made in the 21st century the perceived bias has favoured the government of the time. Some of these claims have been backed up by reports and investigations. Most recently by ofcom in 2022.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-finds-bbc-in-breach-of-due-impartiality-rules

They are currently in the midst of yet another impartiality row.

As for the license fee, it is collected and enforced by the TV Licensing authority, who are in turn controlled by the BBC. However its undeniable it is aided by the government in doing so. It is government legislation that makes it mandatory, i.e it is an actual criminal offence and non payment is dealt with by the criminal court system. For every other corporation that feels it is owed money they must rely on civil process. Usually the only time non-payment of any kind would be a criminal matter and not a civil one would be where it is a goverment issued tax/fine that has not been paid.

Now for the funny part, as per the Communication Act (The same act that makes it an offence to not have a license):

"(7)Subject to subsection (8), sums received by the BBC by virtue of any regulations under this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(8)The BBC may retain, out of the sums received by them by virtue of regulations under this section, any sums they require for making refunds of sums so received."

Thats right the BBC pays the money from the fees to a goverment fund and is then handed back the money from the government each year.

 

[Pachee]

Come on guys, the bbc isn't government funded, just like inflation is good for you.

 

[Viri]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cbc-twitter-government-funded-media-1.6812591
CBC got the same label, and ragequitted Twitter. I don't know enough about them to know if they actually are gov funded or not.

 

[Marc_LFD]

reliable news network

There's a lot of news networks, but I'd honestly not consider any of them reliable. People need to do their own research than trust what they're being fed by their TV or whatever.

CBC

Oh, there's the Canadian CNN/BBC.

 

[osaka35]

Okay, there's a difference between:
"state funded media"
and
"state sponsored media"

This is an important distinction. One implies control, the other implies only monetary support.

anywho, to the point, by using that specific term as a blanket term (and being opaque on the selection process), twitter as a company is being unnecessarily political.

Here's a pretty accurate mapping of "Accuracy" and "bias" in the media. Just ignore everything but AP news and Reuters. They're the ones who actually do the reporting, anyway.

View attachment MW-GE557_MediaB_20180228115701_NS.jpg

 

[Jayro]

Elon Musk just needs to fuck all the way off. He's too bored with too much money.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

Now that's interesting. Here is a government funded TV channel:

https://twitter.com/tvcultura

and here is a government TV channel, yes, not government funded, it is a TV channel that run by the government straight up. The president chose the employees and everything.

https://twitter.com/TVBrasil

none of those have the BBC seal. So is twitter really worried about telling people "the truth" or they just witch-hunting media outlets that annoy them?

other examples:
- USA's state run media outlet to influence inform Asian audiences: https://twitter.com/RadioFreeAsia
- Saudi Arabia state run channel: https://twitter.com/alekhbariyatv
- Nigeria state run channel: https://twitter.com/NTANewsNow
- and here is for India: https://twitter.com/DDKisanChannel