Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Sheilbh]

Just on the BBC - the BBC is responsible for collecting the licence fee, not the government.

Also the government of the day could change it in theory (like anything else in Britain) through primary legislation - but excluding that fairly unlikely possibility they do have fixed funding settlements for ten year periods. So the government can't touch BBC funding again until 2027.

I think it'd be a fair label for, say, the BBC World Service which is part funded by the FCDO but is editorially independent. A lot of it is down to culture and how strong that editorial line is which is as you say very difficult to know.

The same could be said for a lot of private media - some companies have very strict and strong walls between editorial and commercial. Some are maybe a little bit more porous especially around sponsored content. Should we flag, say, the Telegraph who've done full page sponsored pieces for HSBC? Does that impact their China coverage?

[Jacob]

Yes, how do we distinguish between basic democratic functions and authoritarian forms that ape those functions and proclaim they're democratic? Truly a conundrum.

How do we tell the difference between Putin (who's democratically elected) and Biden (who's democratically elected)?

I don't think it's that difficult, unless you're committed to the story that independent media with journalistic standards are the enemy because you find it convenient to pretend they're being unfair to you.

[Barrister]

Just on the BBC - the BBC is responsible for collecting the licence fee, not the government.

Also the government of the day could change it in theory (like anything else in Britain) through primary legislation - but excluding that fairly unlikely possibility they do have fixed funding settlements for ten year periods. So the government can't touch BBC funding again until 2027.

I think it'd be a fair label for, say, the BBC World Service which is part funded by the FCDO but is editorially independent. A lot of it is down to culture and how strong that editorial line is which is as you say very difficult to know.

The same could be said for a lot of private media - some companies have very strict and strong walls between editorial and commercial. Some are maybe a little bit more porous especially around sponsored content. Should we flag, say, the Telegraph who've done full page sponsored pieces for HSBC? Does that impact their China coverage?

As you point out though the government can change anything by legislation, so it would not be difficult to change the BBC funding settlement either.

But really do you think that makes the BBC more independent than the CBC, which gets its own funding primarily out of a government budget line?

And I thought about bringing up Fox, which in the Dominion News lawsuit is coming across very poorly with business considerations driving a lot of their coverage about the 2020 election aftermath, and not so a commitment to the truth.

And I wonder if/when Twitter is going to go after the Washington Post, since it's owned by Musk's rival Jeff Bezos?

[Barrister]

Yes, how do we distinguish between basic democratic functions and authoritarian forms that ape those functions and proclaim they're democratic? Truly a conundrum.

How do we tell the difference between Putin (who's democratically elected) and Biden (who's democratically elected)?

I don't think it's that difficult, unless you're committed to the story that independent media with journalistic standards are the enemy because you find it convenient to pretend they're being unfair to you.

COme on it's not as easy as that.

How do you tell the difference with Bolsonaro in Brazil, who sounded very anti-democratic but left office peacefully?  Or AMLO in Mexico who just dismantled the independent election monitoring organization?

And even for Putin things seemed mostly democratic in Russia in 2000 - the country is in a far, far different place now compared to then.  So when exactly did Russia become an autocracy?

[Jacob]

Honestly, to draw parallels between outlets like NPR, BBC, CBC on one hand and the propaganda outlets of places like Russia and China - and saying they need to be similarly labelled - is disengenuous at best.

[Jacob]

Yes, how do we distinguish between basic democratic functions and authoritarian forms that ape those functions and proclaim they're democratic? Truly a conundrum.

How do we tell the difference between Putin (who's democratically elected) and Biden (who's democratically elected)?

I don't think it's that difficult, unless you're committed to the story that independent media with journalistic standards are the enemy because you find it convenient to pretend they're being unfair to you.

COme on it's not as easy as that.

How do you tell the difference with Bolsonaro in Brazil, who sounded very anti-democratic but left office peacefully?  Or AMLO in Mexico who just dismantled the independent election monitoring organization?

And even for Putin things seemed mostly democratic in Russia in 2000 - the country is in a far, far different place now compared to then.  So when exactly did Russia become an autocracy?

You're right, there definitely are points along the spectrum where it's hard to make the call. When exactly did (or does) Orban become an autocrat as opposed to just a slightly odious populist? That's potentially an interesting question, and the answers can be up for debate.

But to use that type of "shades of gray, it's difficult to say" argument to outlets like NPR (or BBC, or CBC) is IMO an attack on the press exactly calibrated to undermine the fourth estate's critical function in protecting democracy and our institutions.

Shades of grey notwithstanding, there's no doubt about Putin. Similarly, there's no doubt about NPR, BBC, or CBC.

[garbon]

Honestly, to draw parallels between outlets like NPR, BBC, CBC on one hand and the propaganda outlets of places like Russia and China - and saying they need to be similarly labelled - is disengenuous at best.

And good on NPR for withdrawing from the platform over it.

[Barrister]

Honestly, to draw parallels between outlets like NPR, BBC, CBC on one hand and the propaganda outlets of places like Russia and China - and saying they need to be similarly labelled - is disengenuous at best.

I didn't say they should be treated the same.

I just said this stuff is hard - and that Musk doesn't seem to realize it with his "shoot from the hip" strategy at Twitter.  I brought up Al Jazeera which seems to be pretty good - just don't expect it to criticize the Qatari government.  So how do you deal with that?

[Sheilbh]

As you point out though the government can change anything by legislation, so it would not be difficult to change the BBC funding settlement either.

Sure - but parliament's sovereign. And we have a political constitution, they could ban free speech tomorrow but it would be politically challenging.

Smilarly, politically it would be incredibly difficult for any government to change the BBC's funding tomorrow in the same it would be very difficult to abolish the NHS or legislate for the execution of Sir David Attenborough - all possible, but difficult and unlikely as they're beloved national institutions.

But really do you think that makes the BBC more independent than the CBC, which gets its own funding primarily out of a government budget line?

I think that the BBC is responsible for collecting its own funding and has a fairly fixed, mult-year medium-term funding settlement strenghten its independence. I don't know about the CBC and can't compare.

And I thought about bringing up Fox, which in the Dominion News lawsuit is coming across very poorly with business considerations driving a lot of their coverage about the 2020 election aftermath, and not so a commitment to the truth.

Yeah I think that's interesting - I'd say anything Fox make admissions on in that case should be flagged because I think that's legitimate. If it's content they are not standing behind in court then I think you should flag it - just as you'd have corrections or, in Europe, right to be forgotten.

I think if we're flagging this sort of thing I think it is arguable that we should at least be flagging sponsored content.

And I wonder if/when Twitter is going to go after the Washington Post, since it's owned by Musk's rival Jeff Bezos?

It's inevitable.

[Jacob]

I didn't say they should be treated the same.

And I didn't say that you said they should

I just said this stuff is hard - and that Musk doesn't seem to realize it with his "shoot from the hip" strategy at Twitter.  I brought up Al Jazeera which seems to be pretty good - just don't expect it to criticize the Qatari government.  So how do you deal with that?

We seem to agree that Musk is fucking up

I dunno... how would you label Al Jazeera? And how come Musk thought Twitter should slap a label on NPR but not Al Jazeera?

[garbon]

The BBC interview with Musk was a bit of a car crash. Apparently the poor journalist involved had been given 90 minutes to prep when the key to a good interview is being absolutely on top of the detail (why Andrew Neil is very good). Feels like a bit of ediitorial negligence and chances are they won't get a second go for a while.

Bad means but okay end, why does he need more of a platform than he already has?

[Sheilbh]

Al Jazeera is the challenging one and challenging model - Al Jazeera English is great but state funded and now moving from London to Doha as its base. But my understanding is Al Jazeera in Arabic is very clearly pushing Qatar's agenda (just like Al Arabiya is Saudi's etc). I'm not sure what the right answer is on that to be honest.

It's certainly not Russia Today or Press TV, say.

[Sheilbh]

Bad means but okay end, why does he need more of a platform than he already has?

Sorry - it was a car crash for the BBC. The journalist was clearly underprepared and when Musk challenged on some questions they weren't able to push back. It felt like they'd read a lot of articles about Musk but not actually anything underneath that.

It's BBC News. It's a news story being covered by most media outlets, the BBC is one of the players and they got an offer to interview the owner of the other. If you think it's a newsworthy interview then I think you do it.

[garbon]

Bad means but okay end, why does he need more of a platform than he already has?

Sorry - it was a car crash for the BBC. The journalist was clearly underprepared and when Musk challenged on some questions they weren't able to push back. It felt like they'd read a lot of articles about Musk but not actually anything underneath that.

It's BBC News. It's a news story being covered by most media outlets, the BBC is one of the players and they got an offer to interview the owner of the other. If you think it's a newsworthy interview then I think you do it.

That bold bit is what I'm talking about though.

[Barrister]

I just said this stuff is hard - and that Musk doesn't seem to realize it with his "shoot from the hip" strategy at Twitter.  I brought up Al Jazeera which seems to be pretty good - just don't expect it to criticize the Qatari government.  So how do you deal with that?

We seem to agree that Musk is fucking up

I dunno... how would you label Al Jazeera? And how come Musk thought Twitter should slap a label on NPR but not Al Jazeera?

His mercurial management style has fucked this up from the beginning.

He should have set up some kind of system - any kind of system, for these decisions about what accounts to unban, how to label accounts, what to do with Blue Checks... but instead it's pretty clear he just makes these decisions on the fly.  He sees that NYT won't pay for Twitter Blue - so he takes away their blue checkmark.  He doesn't like an NPR article so he labels them as state media.

I wonder if this is the difference between running a tech company, and running a company in the "real world" like Tesla or Space X.  A rocket or an electric car take years to develop, design and build so any crazy ideas he comes up with can't be implemented for a long period of time so he has a chance to think better of it.  Whereas if he wants to unban Donalt Trump he can do so almost immediately.