I have decided to forgo my usual resistance to make threads that include the name "Musk" in them, and risk it here.
I say that because when it comes to anything "Elon Musk" it has to carry a lot of distateful baggabe either pro (fanboi all things Musk) or con
(Over-hyped, oversold, overstated, yada yada.) I don't care that its' Musk. But arsTechnica has to garner clicks too, so...
Musk labels CBC “69%
Government-funded” as more news outlets quit Twitter
CBC stops posting on Twitter, says "our journalism is independent."
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Twitter profile has a new label that Elon Musk wrote specifically for Canada's public broadcaster:
"69% Government-funded Media." While Musk appears to be enjoying his feud with media outlets, his insistence on using "state-affiliated" and
"government-funded" labels for public broadcasters has driven several news organizations to quit the social network that he bought for $44
billion.
I have to note that this article could be taken in more ways than one.
First, the author directly uses the name "Musk" over and over, as if Twitter is a one-person thing. And everything Twitter is specifically a
"Musk" personal activity. But I get it... the name makes for search hits.
Apparently, "Musk" had originally labeled the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 70% government-funded, but it was based on a rounding up of last
year's data... so he corrected it to 69%...
The folks at arsTechnica went to the maths... correcting with this years data which makes it 66%, actually. I guess they made their point.
They also explore the "other" of the 'several news organizations,' NPR. They too declared that identifying them as government funded was somehow
'misleading.'
Now my question is why has it come to the point of wanting people to be aware of the financial ties between the government and their "News"
operation makes a "bad" impression on their audience? Is it not possible for the government to fund a journalistic enterprise without imposing its
ideology and agenda on the operation? Is it automatically a terrible thing for a news organization to get grants from the government?
Don't misunderstand, I know the government has repeatedly and egregiously abused such relationships... any student of history can discover it for
themselves.
But are they not sending a contradictory message when they claim they don't want that relationship acknowledged? Why the posture of shame? Why the
defensive responses? Or do they just want in on the "bad" Musk party... again.