Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If NPR is really concerned about getting balanced news to the masses, then their decision to quit twitter, in the lack of an alternative and equivalent platform, seems short-sighted and more like a temper tantrum of a kindergartner, than that of a thoughtful and mature news organization.

It also reinforces the conspiracy theories that they were never truly independent. By making a stinker about this issue, they are trying to paint Musk as the evil overlord hell bent on strangling anyone he dislikes. NYT, WaPo and other leftist media outlets are going to join (yet again) this bandwagon, guaranteed.

Did BBC quit? No.

NPR, grow up, be an adult.



I'm one of the people who thinks "government-funded" is a fair label (though "state-affiliated" isn't as it implies editorial control).

However, not putting up with someone's (or a company's) antics is not a temper-tantrum, nor a factor in if their decision was "adult" or not. If an organization is offended by a company's decision, then what's wrong with their decision to leave?

Why would they tarnish their brand by having all of their posts accompanied by a label that they deem to be false?


While I don't have proof, I believe the screaming of NPR about this issue was deliberate (yet again) attempt at painting Musk as the "Evil Overlord" about to destroy the very fabric of fairness, democracy and society.

And I never implied NPR cannot or should not leave if they disagree. The BBC example was simply drawing parallels with someone who made no stink about this and chose to stay. To my knowledge, there was no attempt from NPR to have that label corrected, which seems to be the first logical step.

Off topic, I never found NPR to be neutral or unbiased. They are great pretenders of neutrality though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: