Making Sense of Social Media Labelling

 

Questions Concerning Social Media Platform Labelling of News Media

In these times of heightened national and international tensions many are voicing their concerns that news outlets and broadcasters are restricting public discourse to a narrow political and economic band of ideas. There is a tendency amongst social commentators that various pundits who write and speak these days express their views within these restricted parameters for fear of challenging powerful organisations such as governments, security agencies and various corporate interests. This state of affairs is all the more concerning given how private companies, think tanks can be intertwined with state security interests. It is very difficult for the public to determine whose interest’s news outlets and the pundits they employ are serving.

During the course of the last few weeks there has been an angry dialogue across the western media concerning how the social media platform Twitter applied several categories it had defined. The purpose of these categories was to indicate degrees of independence of various western news outlets from states and governments.

The tone of much of the media and pundit commentary consisted of a concerted push back and even questioning of the motives of Elon Musk. Across the western media landscape there was very little nuanced discussion about why labelling is needed and how labelling can mitigate against interference.

Several news outlets had pushed back hard on Twitter lamenting that Twitter has been inaccurate and even biased in the way it had recently labelled these same organisations.

Twitter’s Help Center, had defined three categorises of news outlets:

1. State-Affiliated
2.  Government-Funded
3. Publicly-Funded

In enforcing these definitions Twitter had, in the last month or so added the labels:

• "Government-funded Media” to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
•  "69% Government-funded Media" to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
•  "State-affiliated media" to the US National Public Radio (NPR)

The BBC objected to being labelled as such arguing that it is funded by the British public who pay a licence fee. The Canadian government paused its use of Twitter pointing out that the CBC is 70% funded by the Canadian government. The CBC argues that its editorial independence is protected under the Canadian Broadcasting Act.

Reading the mainstream media, the most contentious of these designations has been that of the designation of NPR as state-affiliated media.

Spokespersons for NPR have argued that NPR is a non-profit media organization. And that the labelling implies that the US Federal Government has influence over the radio network. As a result, NPR requested that Twitter remove the designation. The import of this designation is that Twitter algorithms will not recommend or amplify accounts or their Tweets that have been designated as such. In retaliation, NPR “de-emphasised” Twitter across its organization.

A PC Magazine opinion piece entitled Elon Musk's Latest Twitter Controversy: Labeling NPR as State-Controlled Media writes that Elon Musk's Twitter “…implied the US Government does exercise control over NPR although he didn’t supply any evidence.”  According to this article Elon Musk has a hostile attitude to traditional media outlets because he prefers “citizen journalism”. 

NPR in an article entitled: Twitter labels NPR's account as 'state-affiliated media,' which is untrue defends itself by pointing out that more than 99% of its funding does not come from the US government.

The article quotes the former Twitter executive Yoel Roth who warned that “Establishing a false equivalency between public broadcasters and editorial control of the media by government is misleading”.  According to Roth this “…undermines the essential work of providing transparency about state-backed propaganda efforts around the world.” 

The NPR invites the reader to simply accept this “false equivalency” argument as it relates to NPR while at the same time acknowledging Mr. Roth's comment concerning the "...essential work of providing transparency."

The article references Caroline Orr Bueno, a behavioural scientist who warned that Twitter’s action may muddy the waters in a news environment where it is hard to discern which news organisations are reliable in terms of editorial independence. The scientist laments that what Twitter has done assists “actual propaganda outlets blend in with legitimate news outlets.”

Once again, the NPR article assumes the “false equivalency” argument as it relates to NPR and at the same time acknowledging Ms. Bueno's comment concerning the need to stop helping "...actual propaganda outlets."

According to NPR it is legitimate to be vigilant and transparent when it comes to exposing propaganda and influence. However, NPR sees attempts to shine a light on NPR itself only serve to confuse and so are not appropriate.

The upshot of this controversy is that Twitter has now removed the government-funded and state-affiliated labels on all prominent media organisations including NPR. 

This saga serves to highlight the anarchic, self-serving and imprecise nature of the news media labelling processes characterised by the push and shove between the Twitter platform and the news media outlets themselves. 

The pertinent question remains:

How do we determine that there is no relationship between a news organisation and the government jurisdictions under which they operate and corporate interests?

What is apparent is that there are few nuanced discussions in the mainstream media concerning all of this.

Courtney C. Radsch in an article, published under the Brookings Institute banner entitled "Twitter’s NPR saga demonstrates the challenge of labeling media" refreshingly cuts through the hype and explains the nuances well in her discussion of the manner in which TikTok, Meta, YouTube and Twitter apply the “state-affiliated” label.

Ms. Radsch observes that: “One challenge is that each of the platforms makes its own determinations based on its own relatively opaque assessments.”

Ms. Radsch highlights that the labelling choices made by the platforms had broader “…implications for press freedom, human rights and democracy…that could also provide cover for politicized attacks on media.” She points out how challenging “…the complexity of government influence over media outlets” can be.

Ms. Radsch writes that given the opaque nature of media funding it is difficult to determine the level of state control. In this context she argues that the State-affiliated label is a reasonable one to use. The reason she gives is that it “…allows for greater ambiguity about how much government interference is needed to undermine editorial independence.”

Ms. Roach emphasises that not even this is perfect pointing out that there are many privately owned media outlets that disseminate propaganda and disinformation. There are also plenty of public-supported news outlets that critique state and government actions and policies.

Given this Ms. Radsch is justified when she advocates that designations should be objective and fact-based as possible. She hits the nail on the head when she points out that “Deciding which news counts as independent journalism, and which media outlets are extensions of their political or financial backers, is not only difficult but ultimately political.”  

So, what is to be done?

Ms. Radsch is correct in contending a more nuanced approach. The solution should not reside in the hands of the platforms and the billionaires that own them.  Decisions on how to improve labelling of online news media need to be independent of the platforms.

The current haphazard system where labels are slapped on media outlets Twitter and similar platforms should concentrate on finding out how “…to clearly distinguish news media agencies on their platforms and in their content moderation systems. They also should rely on a multistakeholder process that insulates these decisions from politics.”

Ms. Radsch sees the profession of journalism through its many professional associations and standard-setting bodies and accreditation practices as a basis for third-party assessment to determine the category of label a media outlet should be designated as. She also points out that academic and practitioner communities that collect country by country data such as State Media Monitor and the Media Ownership Monitor have the legitimacy to accountably and transparently categorise media.

The reliance on these third-party players is fine as far as it goes. When it comes to the notion of independence there are always risks involved. This is why there are attempts to institute labelling regimes in the first place. 

In whichever way news organisations are labelled there is no guarantee of independence from the influence of government or other societal and economic interests. There is always the risk that journalists and editorial writers are influenced by or even affiliated with government as well as other interests not working in the public interest.

Thus, utterances of independence ought not to be always taken at face value even if there is no government funding involved.

Consumers need to be more attentive and discerning in how they digest the news and information presented by news agencies. One way would be to question the provenance of the various pundits invited to express or write about their analyses and views on the news. They may be associated with a think-tank or government agency with some kind of vested interest.

In conclusion, to avoid the mass media circus reaction of the last several weeks over Twitter’s labelling policies and actions it is important that we persist as a society to, as much a possible ensure the independence of news media. This effort should however not be left in the hands of the media platforms and media pundits but rather in the hands of professional and standard testing bodies. Also, we as consumers of the news presented to us via various media platforms need to be vigilant ourselves.

References

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affiliated-china

https://au.pcmag.com/social-media/99529/elon-musks-latest-twitter-controversy-labeling-npr-as-state-controlled-media

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168158549/twitter-npr-state-affiliated-media

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2023/04/13/twitters-npr-saga-demonstrates-the-challenge-of-labeling-media/