Twitter: BBC objects to 'government funded media' label

[tabzer]

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. It's the difference between Fox "news" and PBS. Fox "news" is republican sponsored media, PBS is federally funded media. spot the difference?

As a side note, while PBS doesn't handle the news, Fox doesn't really either. It's all "opinion", according to fox news themselves.

anywho, to the point, by not bothering to distinguish, twitter as a company is being unnecessarily political.

I don't understand how you arrive to that nuance. Can't there be scenarios where state funded media is more accessible to the public than state sponsored media, and vice versa?

All of the above have incentive to get involved with politics for their own interests. Politicians on twitter seemed a bit dystopian to me when that started happening.

 

[osaka35]

I don't understand how you arrive to that nuance. Can't there be scenarios where state funded media is more accessible to the public than state sponsored media, and vice versa?

All of the above have incentive to get involved with politics for their own interests. Politicians on twitter seemed a bit dystopian to me when that started happening.

aye, well a proper government will fund, but be barred from influencing or silencing. the other is the type we don't like: complete control of content and silencing as they more or less own it all.

think of it as the difference between a silent benefactor who has no input on the artist vs the toxic boss who has complete control over any art output. yes, both "fund" the art, but it's incredibly different dynamic which requires distinction.

 

[User154]

aye, well a proper government will fund, but be barred from influencing or silencing. the other is the type we don't like: complete control of content and silencing as they more or less own it all.

think of it as the difference between a silent benefactor who has no input on the artist vs the toxic boss who has complete control over any art output. yes, both "fund" the art, but it's incredibly different dynamic which requires distinction.

Do you feel that the fact a freelance presenter got taken off air for making anti government comments on twitter, by a media outlet whose chairman used to be the PM's boss, and has donated £400,000 to the ruling party blurs those lines slightly? or not at all?

Personally it feels like the current relationship between the BBC and the government lies somewhere in the middle of those 2 descriptions.

 

[TraderPatTX]

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 365687

Everybody knows state funded means state controlled. The state never funds anything without strings attached. A good rule of thumb is anything the government funds, the government also controls.

 

[tabzer]

proper government

I'm feeling sleepy...

 

[Viri]

Everybody knows state funded means state controlled. The state never funds anything without strings attached. A good rule of thumb is anything the government funds, the government also controls.

Wait, you're trying to tell me that the UK gov doesn't give money to the BBC out of the goodness of their hearts?