Elon Musk has decided to go to war with NPR, and
now he's calling for NPR to be stripped of its government funding.
Everything old is new again.
It feels like it's 2012 all over again because this was the argument
the Republican Party was making,
which is going to lead us to get into the funding sources of NPR.
But first, what started this fight in the first place?
Well, it started with Elon Musk deciding on April 4 to
give NPR's Twitter account the label of US State affiliated media.
So the designation, according to Twitter policy documents,
is one reserved for outlets where the state exercises control over
editorial content through financial resources, direct or
indirect political pressures, and or control over production and distribution.
And it's interesting that he chose to do that with NPR,
especially given all the other right wing news sources that seem to be in bed
with right wing politicians, including the Trump and his goons and all of that.
Anyway, so Twitter used to have a policy that exempted outlets like NPR and
BBC from the label because they were classified as organizations
with editorial independence.
And that policy has since been removed from Twitter.
Okay, I'm gonna pause before we get into the argument about how it's funded and
how the government should strip it of its funding.
I'm so sick of Twitter stories, like I just am.
I want him to just destroy it already and let's move on, okay?
It's done more harm than good.
I know people like to pretend like, no, it's really important.
It's actually given people a voice and it's helped to mobilize people.
Yeah, yeah, not buying it.
It's led to all sorts of divisions, it has fractured American society so
significantly because honestly, what Twitter does is it rewards people.
Like you get an endorphin rush simply by dunking on people or dogpiling on people.
I don't know, just destroy it already, I don't care.
I don't care about the labels, I don't care about NPR feeling offended by this.
Let's just move on with our lives, that's how I feel.
What do you think Cenk?
>> Yeah, well let me ask you this question.
When's the last time you saw something amazing and
filled with love and happiness spread on Twitter?
>> Never.
Maybe when it was first created, right?
I remember in the first maybe two years of Twitter, it was actually a fantastic
source to get news that was not reported in legacy media outlets, right?
So if there was a protest breaking out, for instance,
it would be a great resource to get some citizen journalism on
the ground from those protests, that's just one example.
I remember when Texas representative, I believe her name was Wendy Davis,
did that epic filibuster to prevent an anti abortion bill from passing in Texas.
It got no coverage in the beginning, and
people were relying on Twitter to get information about it.
Twitter was first and all the legacy media sources came second.
And so there was a value to Twitter, but as usual, people came in and wrecked it.
>> Yeah, now let me ask you guys,
when's the last time you saw something hateful on Twitter?
Like a second ago, a thousand times today.
Everybody thinks the same thing, right?
So to Ana's point,
I think we might be at a point where it's doing a lot more damage than good.
Look, it's not that there are good parts of it,
there's some important viral clips that people should see.
There are some independent sources on there that are interesting, and
I catch good football and basketball clips on there when I missed it.
>> Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
You're not getting that excellent content from Fantasy Football magazine?
>> [LAUGH] Okay, you're still stuck on my magazine.
>> I am, I am.
>> Okay, and by the way guys, let's keep it real.
I'm totally guilty too, okay?
Man, do I fight on Twitter.
And that's why we joke around,
like I'm like I appear to be the angriest guy on Twitter.
And in the real world, I'm like the happiest guy you'll ever see.
But why?
Because it rewards fighting, and so it drives a guy as happy as me.
But to be fair, of course I'm a warrior for our side, so
I get into the melees, etc.
But that's what it rewards, that's what it wants, that's what it gets.
And so, yeah, we got tons and tons of division on there, but it's so
hard to leave.
So in a sense, the NPR is doing something a little bold here.
I think they caught too many feelings, if you ask me, but I think the hypocrisy of
Elon Musk receiving government money is the best part of this story.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, so let's continue now that we've gone off on our personal tangents
about this.
So NPR's own website, I should note,
states that federal funding is essential for public radio stations such as itself.
However, the outlet also insists that they receive less
than 1% of their funding from federal resources.
NPR is an independent nonprofit media organization that gets the bulk of
its direct financial support from two sources, sponsorships and
fees paid by hundreds of member stations.
NPR receives federal funds indirectly because they play a vital role in
supporting member stations through annual grants from the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting.
But those stations also rely on audience donations and
other revenue, and they purchase programs and
content from across the public media ecosystem, not solely from NPR.
So a good example of that would be KCRW,
which is a radio station here in Los Angeles,
a radio station that I really enjoy, I like it, they play kind of funky music.
But anyway, in terms of like the NPR broadcasts that they use,
their news component comes from NPR.
So it's a member station and they do endless fundraising drives,
like endless, okay?
So they do a lot of fundraising, but yes,
there's also some public money that goes into these stations.
So let's look at the next graphic because it'll show you what
the breakdown looks like.
Public radio station revenues, so
about 43% comes from individual donations, 16% from corporations.
I'm gonna go ahead and guess that's like from sponsorships and things like that.
10% from colleges and universities, 9% from investments, 9% from foundations.
But anyway, once you get toward the bottom,
you'll see federal appropriation via CPB and that's 8% and
then another 5% from federal state and local governments.
So there is some public money involved, but the bulk of the funding does in
fact come from corporations in the form of sponsorships and investments and
also from individual listeners.
>> I think that this idea that NPR is federally funded came from its past.
And so I get why people think that,
it used to get a much larger percentage of its funding from the federal government.
But as you can see from the numbers now, it doesn't anymore.
But by the way, NPR was way better when it was more funded by the government,
because now that it's funded by corporations largely, well it has the same
kind of corporate mainstream group think that every other outlet has.
So whenever progressives like Bernie Sanders runs, they crap all over them.
They have the same group think.
I know a lot of you love NPR, but I think it has helped the corporate
agenda as much as almost any outlet because here's a source that a lot
of people trust and it still has the same pro corporate message.
And by the way, it also teaches you, be civil, do not ever fight back.
Make sure you're asleep, okay?
And one last thing, if you're looking at those numbers and go wait, no Cenk and
Ana, you just showed us individuals are the biggest part, 43%.
Yes that's true, but remember, there is no one individual that demands things,
whereas those corporations, if you say the wrong thing, will pull their money.
And plus you now have 9% of investment,
they've invested into other financial companies, etc., etc.
So now they're financially linked with the corporate world and
it has made NPR much worse.
>> So after a few days of placing this label on NPR's Twitter account,
Musk decided to change course.
And so he went from state affiliated to government funding as the label,
which seemingly appeared like he was backing down.
Now an NPR journalist reported that during that time, they had an email exchange and
he claimed that that exchange probably led to the change of heart.
But yesterday, Elon Musk jumped right back into the fray and
pulled one of his usual stunts, which was to make public the private exchange.
He posted some screenshots, here is an email that was
sent by Bobby Allen from NPR that he posted.
Because of the label,
NPR is quitting Twitter across all of our 50 plus accounts.
Our executives say the government funded media label calls into question our
editorial independence and undermines our credibility.
Some wonder if this will cause a chain reaction among news organizations.
What's your reaction?
And Elon Musk did respond to that post, so let's get to that.
He just said, defund NPR because he's a child.
And then finally, this is where the hypocrisy comes in.
Let's go to the next graphic.
This is from a May 30 2015 headline from the Los Angeles Times.
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies.
>> Oops, so both probably as a raw number and a percentage higher than NPR.
So Twitter, Tesla, SpaceX, they should all
have the brand government funded propaganda.
[LAUGH] So of course, Tesla is not propaganda, and
Twitter is not exactly government funded.
But you get it, you get it.
But look, overall, you wanna do truth and labeling,
as long as it's actual truth, okay?
And remember, by Elon Musk logic, he said defund NPR.
So if you got government subsidies, like 5 billion in government subsidies,
apparently we should defund you.
But Ana, to be fair, he has already defunded Twitter.
>> Yeah, and I love to see it.
>> Seems that he defunded himself at least $20 billion already on that.
>> Probably more than that.
It's such a glitchy platform now.
I mean, sending the tweet, like if I'm DM-ing someone,
it'll take forever for the message to go through.
It looks like it's buffering or something.
I'm like, what's going on here?
If I like someone's message, the heart doesn't pop up until, I don't know,
maybe 30 seconds later.
It's so weird, the whole thing is falling apart, which is great.
>> Yeah, no look, the thing that I love most about Elon Musk very
public flame out, at least in terms of his investment.
He bought that thing for over $40 billion.
He'd be super lucky if it was worth 20.
I don't think it's worth ten, and most analysts agree with me, okay?
So all that corporate propaganda about how the people at the top are so
smart, we can't even understand their genius.
And he was at the very, very top, he was the wealthiest man in the world and
the CEO of all these major companies.
And so if you listen to mainstream media, what a genius.
An unbridled genius we couldn't possibly understand.
Well, we just saw him clown away $20 to $30 billion.
There ain't no genius to that.
And you see, now the platform is falling apart at the scenes.
He's like I'm gonna fire two-thirds of the employees, and it's gonna work great.
It doesn't work great at all.
He was wrong about every part of it.
>> He's also weirdly cantankerous and loves to pick fights with everyone.
I mean, even his bromance with Matt Taibi has come to an end.
It's really fascinating stuff.
He does remind me of a younger version of Trump.
>> Yeah, well, that's what we're worried about.
But Ana, speaking of which, Twitter made him more cantankerous, right?
And Twitter got him to start fighting with his own allies.
Congrats, you now have the same virus that you're giving to everyone else.