State financed means state-affiliated unless we say it doesn't
Every media organization in the United States receives funding from the Department of Defense and is subject to editorial control from the DoD and others. US politicians literally attempt to influence TV shows and movies they don't like on social media.
Sometimes we see these completely bizzare fabrications about enemy states, like everyone in the DPRK being forced to have the same haircut and everyone in China living under constant threat of losing "social credit".
I wonder if part of the reason those stories circulates is because they encourage us to think about state coercion in the most childish, simplified way possible which makes us less likely to consider how the state actually influences the media and coerces the population in less obvious ways.
today in projection:
everyone in the DPRK being forced to have the same haircut
the South Korean military dictatorship installed by the USA actually did police haircuts in the 1970s [article]
everyone in China living under constant threat of losing “social credit”.
Americans are increasingly obsessed with their credit scores
In the deranged imagination of liberals at least you can still do stuff like post CPC propaganda to increase your social credit, but when it comes to credit score which actually exists you're mostly just fucked if you're born poor
Damn, Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle was just playing catch-up
It's to distract you from the horrors your life. "See, it could be so much worse". A lot of propaganda techniques are basically just being an abusive partner/parent but to the whole country ("if you leave me, you'll die/get attacked by someone worse", "you'll never find anyone better than me", "I make your life miserable for your own good", etc.)
Every media organization in the United States receives funding from the Department of Defense and is subject to editorial control from the DoD and others.
Damn. Even TrueAnon?
Previous NYT reporters have said their editors have suppressed stories before due to concerns by the government https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/
I was sitting in the nearly empty restaurant of the Westin Hotel in Alexandria, Virginia, getting ready for a showdown with the federal government that I had been trying to avoid for more than seven years. The Obama administration was demanding that I reveal the confidential sources I had relied on for a chapter about a botched CIA operation in my 2006 book, “State of War.” I had also written about the CIA operation for the New York Times, but the paper’s editors had suppressed the story at the government’s request. It wasn’t the only time they had done so
the NYT literally sat on Bush's warrantless wiretapping scandal for more than a year, until after he was reelected in 2004, because the government asked them to.
I'm sorry, I can't read this because I was told The Intercept was Russian propaganda.
NYT fired Chris Hedges for his divergent opinion on the Iraq war, would that make the NYT U.S. State affiliated media under these rules?
Virtually every news source in the US paraphrase AP and Reuters, who themselves paraphrase their CIA sources, but sure, US sources are not state-affiliated.
I dream of twitter one day being forced to warn people that what they're reading is corporate-affiliated media
State-affiliated media = Media from BadCountry that doesn't parrot US propaganda.
So far they have not been given the scary "state-affiliated media" symbol
Wait what’s an example of an act they label as state affiliated. There’s nothing for RFA and even YouTube marks that as funded by the US.
As far as I'm aware it's almost exclusively used on media from "bad" countries like China or Russia. They put a symbol and a warning under the twitter handle. Here's one example: https://twitter.com/xhnews
BBC was literally threatened with funding cuts if they didn't give more favorable coverage to Boris Johnson and his administration.
EDIT:
"Downing Street is threatening the future of the BBC by insisting it is seriously considering decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee […] No 10 pointed to Andrew Neil’s on-air monologue in which he lambasted Johnson for his refusal to be interviewed, and the BBC’s “extensive coverage” of a four-year-old boy with suspected pneumonia forced to sleep on a hospital floor – as supposed evidence of anti-Tory, pro-remain bias at the corporation."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-threatens-bbc-with-two-pronged-attack
