I agree, but do you agree we should have these labels for transparency?Good labels are great for transparency.
Bad labels do the opposite. They can confuse and give people misleading impressions.
They can make it easier to give credibility to bad people. If you like NPR, you might assume that China Xinhua News is just as good for getting a broader perspective.
I feel this isn't really an issue, NPR may be labelled wrong but it will be altered if NPR put in a reasonable argument why it shouldn't be labelled "government funded". I don't understand the amount of push back about labelling when it benefits the public.That's the complete opposite of how most things work.
Arguments usually work by waiting for evidence of something, not by providing evidence of there not being something.
I think the main argument why they are labelled "government funded" is because they say on their own website that the rely on government funding. If they can provide context,Where does it say that on the NPR website?
Now today I see they've removed all labels, including from state media.
It's been hard following all the changes. Looks like today no one has labels, or maybe the system is glitched.I see YouTube labelling things like:
Youtube has traditionally labeled BBC, NPR, and PBS as publicly funded media so I'm pretty sure they're happy with that label. It's only the government/state funded label that was problematic for them.
NPR is an American Public Broadcast.
I don't see the same implied language on their channel, but maybe I am missing it.