You should consider the context of using that label on Twitter, not just the label name itself. State-affiliated label on Twitter means something as "biased", it's not used on its pure definition in a vacuum. That's the problem.
Not in any way that doesn't label literally everything anyone says as biased. When was the last time you actually listened to one of their news broadcasts? They are annoyingly neutral both sidesing issues where one side is clearly insane and doesn't represent anyone's real views except the one guy who found a megaphone. If there's a bill in the statehouse recognizing puppies as cute they'll find the one guy who's anti-dog and willing to die on that hill.
Extremely biased is Jon Stewart, a person who does a news broadcast with the express purpose to take a stance and say something.
You say this but the subject matter of their journalists implies certain preferences that are aligned with the government's.
Until NPR starts including journalistoc voices that are critical of ESG, abortion access, and other pet projects the current administration is fond of then the designation is apt.
NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.
> Until NPR starts including journalistoc voices that are critical of ESG, abortion access, and other pet projects the current administration is fond of then the designation is apt.
I don't understand, the NPR bias was there when those were not pet projects of whatever government under Trump, correct? So why does a change in government then changes the stance of NPR if that stance was there before the current government took power?
Also, being critical of abortion access is simply stupid in 2023, it's founded on religious grounds and I don't think religion should be part of any social policy discussion... Requiring a journalistic institution to cater to "both sides" is either naive or absurdly stupid.
Being biased or having a specific political stance is not the same thing as state affiliation; it's just ... (dis)agreeing with policies. Were they "state affiliated" during the Trump admin?
The harping on their bias in this thread is ridiculous, because unless the government is telling them what to write, it's entirely irrelevant.
> NPR used to be a great news source in the 90s and 2000s. That hasn't been the case since about 2012.
SO FUCKING WHAT. Maybe they're useless garbage now, maybe not, but either way that still doesn't make them a government mouthpiece.
> SO FUCKING WHAT. Maybe they're useless garbage now, maybe not, but either way that still doesn't make them a government mouthpiece.
Like I said, until they're critical of the administration like they were with Bush Jr, then they are nothing more than a mouthpiece of the current administration.
They may choose to say things in favor of the government (or not), but that is still fundamentally different than the government telling them what to say, which is what "state affiliated" means.
