While I think it is correct that Elon is getting big gov. contracts which potentially compromises him, to characterize Twitter as state media is a bit over-the-top. He sacrificed a great deal of his wealth to takeover Twitter and air out all its dirty laundry, including extensive collab with US gov. Do you think he would continue this collab. after doing so? I find that idea highly doubtful. Particularly because a lot of the examples above are not as cut-and-dried as you portray them.
A lot of the obvious accounts controlled by the US gov, like CIA and whatnot, are just posting mundane recruitment and housekeeping posts. Nothing that could be construed as trying to influence narrative. So state funding labels for those seems unnecessary and obvious.
The NED is a problem because they have a layer of plausible deniability. They get funding from the US gov and mix it with money from foundations to muddy the waters. They then claim that their board of directors is independent in how it distributes the funds. So while it is plainly obvious that this is a narrative control device of the US gov., it would be hard to prove beyond a doubt that the gov. is directing its funding. This makes labeling its grant recipients as state media problematic.
Also take a look at the article headlines published by Fair.org and you might detect some bias in their reporting. When the Twitter Files revealed extensive collaboration between the media and the government, did Fair do a story on it? Not that I can see on their website. Only a passing mention in this before beginning a partisan hack job which seems to be amplifying the same message promoted by the rest of the mainstream media. Musk is not to trusted.
Well I don't put blind trust in him either, but his actions so far lead me to believe he is not on the side of the establishment. And we should judge a person by their actions shouldn't we?
I mean just look at some of the article titles published by "Fair.org" and decide if you think this is a non-partisan "fair" outlet.
The Right Turns Anti-LGBTQ Hate Up to 11
‘There Is More Than One Solution Needed to the Problem of an Insurrection’-
Lisa Gilbert on the January 6 Report-
Pamela Paul’s Gender Agenda-
NYT Did Musk a Political Favor-
In the last month that's two anti-Musk articles, one pro-trans-don't-ask-any-damn-questions-lest-we-label-you-an-anti-trans-hate-monger article, two fearmongering articles on 1/6, one fear mongering article on the far right. All well trodden liberal mainstream media narratives. Fair indeed.
While I think it is correct that Elon is getting big gov. contracts which potentially compromises him, to characterize Twitter as state media is a bit over-the-top. He sacrificed a great deal of his wealth to takeover Twitter and air out all its dirty laundry, including extensive collab with US gov. Do you think he would continue this collab. after doing so? I find that idea highly doubtful. Particularly because a lot of the examples above are not as cut-and-dried as you portray them.
A lot of the obvious accounts controlled by the US gov, like CIA and whatnot, are just posting mundane recruitment and housekeeping posts. Nothing that could be construed as trying to influence narrative. So state funding labels for those seems unnecessary and obvious.
The NED is a problem because they have a layer of plausible deniability. They get funding from the US gov and mix it with money from foundations to muddy the waters. They then claim that their board of directors is independent in how it distributes the funds. So while it is plainly obvious that this is a narrative control device of the US gov., it would be hard to prove beyond a doubt that the gov. is directing its funding. This makes labeling its grant recipients as state media problematic.
Also take a look at the article headlines published by Fair.org and you might detect some bias in their reporting. When the Twitter Files revealed extensive collaboration between the media and the government, did Fair do a story on it? Not that I can see on their website. Only a passing mention in this before beginning a partisan hack job which seems to be amplifying the same message promoted by the rest of the mainstream media. Musk is not to trusted.
Well I don't put blind trust in him either, but his actions so far lead me to believe he is not on the side of the establishment. And we should judge a person by their actions shouldn't we?
I mean just look at some of the article titles published by "Fair.org" and decide if you think this is a non-partisan "fair" outlet.
The Right Turns Anti-LGBTQ Hate Up to 11
‘There Is More Than One Solution Needed to the Problem of an Insurrection’-
Lisa Gilbert on the January 6 Report-
Pamela Paul’s Gender Agenda-
NYT Did Musk a Political Favor-
In the last month that's two anti-Musk articles, one pro-trans-don't-ask-any-damn-questions-lest-we-label-you-an-anti-trans-hate-monger article, two fearmongering articles on 1/6, one fear mongering article on the far right. All well trodden liberal mainstream media narratives. Fair indeed.