Does NPR & PBS Deserve the "Government-funded Media" Label?
Both news agencies argue the label is misleading and inaccurate due to the low amount of funding. Does that matter though?
Free and open press is an idea that the U.S. contributes to a functioning and stable democracy. A press that is safe from governmental oversight and influence. Unlike other nations such as Russia and China, the U.S. can say they do not control their own news agency. While propaganda has deep roots in the history of the U.S., such as with the formation of the United States Office of War Information (OWI) during WW2, there has never been a state-ran media agency. While this may be the case, a major disruption occurred at Twitter when Elon Musk gave the designation of “State-affiliated media” to NPR and PBS last week. This caused an uproar from both news agencies, with the argument that they are truly independent and with the case of NPR, received only around 1% of their total budget from federal funding so they should not be considered state media. Receiving the same label as the CCTV and RT can easily be seen as an overstep and apparently Musk agreed, correcting the label to “Government-funded Media” – this did not appease NPR nor PBS and led to both companies from suspending their activity on Twitter in protest. The main question arises, are these labels at all accurate for NPR and PBS?
Let’s start with the original term State-affiliated Media. While there isn’t a fully defined and accepted definition of what constitutes state-affiliated media, the general idea is self-explanatory. According to the Center for Media, Data and Society, it is when a news or media agency is under financial and editorial control by the state. This is most easily seen in such countries as China with their CCTV which acts as a propaganda hand for the CCP. Images of “The Party” with its mass propaganda usage in George Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind. Since social media has taken on the role of a quasi-government in recent years (controlling what can or cannot be said in the public sphere of the free internet), let’s see how they define such a term.
Twitter:
“State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.”
Facebook:
“Facebook defines "state-controlled media" as media outlets that Facebook believes may be partially or wholly under the editorial control of their government, based on our own research and assessment against a set of criteria developed for this purpose.”
So, when discussing the National Public Radio and Public Broadcast Service here in the U.S., should they be labeled as state affiliated media? All three definitions mention the necessity that the media agency receives financial support from the government. Both NPR and PBS receive direct funding from the federal government, along with additional indirect funding from state and local governments. The actual amounts and percentages I would argue do not matter in this sense, and regardless I will dissect those in the next section. The main piece that matters most though is the question whether there is any governmental control and/or influence over both these news agencies. Both media outlets are private, non-for-profit companies that declare they provide independent journalism without government oversight.
There is no official declaration of influence that is used by the government, whereas the government does not say what these agencies are allowed or not allowed to report on. This does not mean there is no biases or indirect influence, but that may be said of any mainstream media outlets. There is an argument that due to receiving federal funding, NPR and PBS may be less critical of the government and elected officials. This worry is one reason why there has been calls and attempts to defund the agencies in the past, most recently under the Trump administration. Yet this worry isn’t something that can easily be argued for and proved. Overall, the traditional label of state-affiliated media cannot be properly applied to NPR and PBS, whereas any notion for it is only found in theoretical arguments.
It would seem Musk applied this label without truly understanding what it meant, after being told that NPR/PBS are private and independent companies. This led him to change the label to government-funded media. Musk realized that they did not fall under the definition of being editorially controlled/influenced by the government but since they still received funding, the new label was appropriate. As mentioned, this did not calm the backlash. But is this label appropriate for NPR and PBS? Unlike state-affiliated media, the label of government-funded is a bit more simplistic in its definition.
Twitter:
“Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet’s funding and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content.”
Twitter sees any news agency that received any amount of funding from the government as governmental funded. NPR responded by arguing that they are a “private, nonprofit company with editorial independence” and that they do not deserve that label as they only receive “less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget” from the federal government.[1] PBS released a similar statement, arguing that the label “leaves the inaccurate impression that PBS is wholly funded by the federal government,” whereas 15% of their budget is federally funded.[2] Both companies seem to argue that since their funding by the government is small compared to their overall budget, the label is inaccurate. Yet does the actual percentage of funds matter at all when using the label? As per the Twitter definition, all that is required is for the government to provide “some” funding, whether that be 1% or 99%. NPR’s website even claims that federal funding is “essential” to its organization and without it, it would “undermine the station’s ability” to provide its programming.[3]
The argument that since the amount of funding is small that the label doesn’t apply does not hold true. When a citizen of the U.S. reads news articles and headlines from media companies, they are under the impression that it is a free and independent agency not swayed by any governmental control or oversight. While the issue of news agencies being controlled by mega corporations and the donor class is another topic, governmental control holds a specific place in American society. While it cannot be said that the federal government controls NPR nor PBS, both agencies do receive funding from them and that alone must be disclosed to those who actively watch, listen, and read from the agencies. Does this mean the agencies are not unbiased and editorially controlled? No, but it does show that there could be a conflict of interest in their reporting. That is up to each citizen to decide if they wish to consume the news from both of these agencies.
This does not mean that the federal government should stop funding NPR and PBS, nor is that what I’m arguing for. But the label of government-funded media is accurate for these organizations and should be applied to any news agency that receives any amount of federal funding. PBS is right to be worried that the label might send the impression that their agency is fully funded by the government and thus more like that of state-affiliated media, but the label is still not incorrect. Perhaps partially government-funded media would be more accurate? Though I would argue that it makes no difference in the matter. Regardless, the U.S. is very protective of its 1st Amendment right of free speech and free press, and so when an agency receives governmental funding in any amount, the daily citizen should be informed of such before consuming that content.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/12/1169269161/npr-leaves-twitter-government-funded-media-label
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/tech/npr-twitter-use
[3] https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances