Subsidy-Loving Elon Musk Roasted Over Call to ‘Defund NPR’: ‘Tesla Gets More Funding and Grants from the Government’

By Alex GriffingApr 12th, 2023, 

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Elon Musk, yet again, sparked a backlash over one of his online hot takes on Wednesday. Musk tweeted an email from NPR’s tech reporter Bobby Allyn asking for comment on NPR’s decision to abandon Twitter. The Twitter CEO then replied to his own tweet, “Defund @NPR.” Critics were quick to seize on both the fact that NPR’s government funding is already at very low levels and Musk himself built his businesses on billions in government subsidies.

Musk’s call to “Defund NPR” came just hours after the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee tweeted the same call – fresh off its infamous “Kayne. Elon. Trump.” tweet, which was eventually deleted.

Allyn’s email read, “Because of the label, NPR is quitting Twitter across all of our 50+ accounts. Our executives say the government-funded media label calls into question our editorial independence and undermines our credibility.”

Allyn was referring to Musk’s Twitter labeling NPR “state-affiliated” media earlier in the week, which Musk later noted wasn’t quite accurate and the label was changed to “government-funded.” Musk kicked up a similar controversy by labeling the publicly funded BBC as “government funded.” The BBC label now says “publicly funded.”

“Some wonder if this will cause a chain reaction among news orgs. What’s your reaction?” Allyn’s email asked.

While Musk made his reaction clear, he sparked a bevy of quick and angry reactions. Musk has become an ever-increasingly polarizing figure since he bought Twitter for a highly overinflated price, promising to be a “free speech absolutist” searching for truth.

He sparked angry condemnation for sharing — and later deleting — a loathsome conspiracy theory about the brutal attack on Paul Pelosi, which was later completely debunked.  Musk has since managed to stay in the headlines with stunts like changing Twitter’s logo to the Dogecoin dog and removing the “W” in the headquarter’s sign so that it reads “T–itter.”

Critics pulled no punches in going after the eccentric billionaire.

“Our government already defunded NPR which is only one of several reasons why this whole plutocratic news cycle is so stupid,” wrote LA Times reporter Matt Pearce who also shared an article detailing the funding cuts for public radio dating back decades.

“NPR gets >1% of its funds from federal grants, grants which other non-profit newsrooms could apply for,” wrote Mother Jones’s Clara Jeffery, adding, “Neither Tesla or SpaceX would exist without MASSIVE government subsidies. Should they be defunded?”

“You seem to be a bit busy defunding Twitter,” jested podcaster Tommy Vietor.

“Tesla gets more funding and grants from the government than NPR does,” wrote tech journalist Zach Nelson, aka ‘JerryRigEverything.’ “And Tesla gets hardly any. So that’s saying something.”

Below are more reactions roasting Musk:

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Junior Doctor Really Puts The Amount Needed To Restore Pay Into Perspective

The government appears to have spent more for less substantial rewards in the past.

By Kate Nicholson
12/04/2023 

HUFFPOST

People hold British Medical Association (BMA) branded placards calling for better pay, as they stand on a picket line outside University College Hospital (UCH)
BEN STANSALL VIA GETTY IMAGES

A member of the BMA Union really put the pay rise the junior doctors are asking for into context during an interview with Sky News this week.

Junior doctors are in the middle of a four-day strike which is already being dubbed the most disruptive walkout in NHS history, with an estimated 250,000 appointments cancelled as a result.

Organised by the British Medical Association (BMA), the walkout comes on the back of the four-day Easter bank holiday weekend – meaning demand for services is even higher than normal.

But, the BMA says newly qualified medics earn just over £14 an hour and that their pay has fallen by 26% in real terms over the past 15 years.

RELATED NHSS KY NEWSJUNIOR DOCTORSSTRIKES UNION STRIKES

'Pricing Out An Entire Generation!' NHS Surgeon On Why Junior Doctors Turned To Strikes

It says that full pay restoration in the financial year of 2022/23 will cost £1.65 billion – with £0.62 billion returned to the Treasury for income tax and National Insurance contributions.

But the government just claimed that this works out to be a 35% pay increase, an “unreasonable” hike.

Dr Arjan Singh said: ”£37 billion was spent on a disastrous test and trace system, £4 billion on PPE that never saw the light of day and £3 billion on agency staff in the NHS – a demand that is only so high because we can’t retain doctors and start to work on a full-time NHS contract.”

It is worth noting though that – as FullFact found – around £29.5 billion was actually spent on the NHS test and trace, although it had a budget of £37 billion.

But the government did admit that it planned to burn £4 billion worth of PPE bought in the first year of the pandemic to “generate power” last June and ministers did say last year that the NHS in England had spent £3 billion on agency staff to fill gaps.

Dr Singh continued: “So the question isn’t, is it realistic to pay junior doctors, is the money there? The money is there.

“The real question we should ask is, is it realistic to expect a world-class healthcare service if you’re going to continually and vociferously cut the wages of doctors working in that system?

“The answer’s no.”

In the interview, Sky News presenter Sally Lockwood also pointed out that the BMA used the retail price index (RPI) to work out how much junior doctors’ pay has been cut.

She claimed the consumer price index “is normally used when it comes to measuring inflation for pay negotiations”, which puts the real-terms cut to doctors’ wages at 16% instead of the BMA’s suggested 26%.

She asked: “Would it not make more sense to have a more realistic demand?”

Dr Singh explained: “We use RPI – RPI is used for student loans, and junior doctors, as I’ve said, are in excess of £100,000.

“It’s also the best measure for housing costs, which is something junior doctors struggle with the most.”

The BMA has also said that health secretary Steve Barclay is refusing to negotiate and that the strikes would stop if pay was just raised to £19 an hour.

MUSK HAS A FRIEND IN CONGRESS —
House Republican tries to protect Musk and Twitter from FTC investigation

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) subpoenas FTC, claims it "harassed" Twitter and Musk.

JON BRODKIN - 4/12/2023

US Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2023.

Getty Images | Pacific Press237WITH

A Republican lawmaker who chairs a key House committee subpoenaed Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan today in an attempt to rein in the agency's ongoing investigation into Twitter.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the newly created Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, told Kahn today that his committee's research shows "the FTC harassed Twitter in the wake of Mr. Musk's acquisition" and "abused it [sic] statutory and enforcement authority."

Jordan teamed up with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) last month to demand documents from the FTC about what they called "inappropriate and burdensome demands coinciding with Elon Musk's acquisition of the company." Jordan wasn't happy with Khan's response, so he followed up with today's subpoena.

"To date, your voluntary compliance has been woefully insufficient. Accordingly, the Committee is issuing a subpoena to compel the production of documents necessary to inform our oversight," Jordan wrote in a letter to Khan today.
Khan: We “enforce the law without fear or favor”

In response, an FTC spokesperson told news outlets that "we have made multiple offers to brief Chairman Jordan's staff on our investigation into Twitter. Those are standing offers made prior to this entirely unnecessary subpoena."

Khan reportedly told Jordan in a March 27 reply that FTC investigations are confidential and that the agency "will continue to faithfully discharge our statutory obligations and enforce the law without fear or favor." She also wrote that ensuring compliance is especially critical "when dealing with recidivists," referring to Twitter's earlier privacy transgressions.

Jordan did not release a copy of today's subpoena, but last month's letter requested all documents and communications "referring or relating to the FTC's investigation(s) of Twitter for the period April 1, 2022, to the present," and all communications "referring or relating to Mr. Musk's purchase of Twitter or the FTC's investigation of Twitter."

Musk is apparently concerned about the investigation into Twitter's privacy and data practices, as he requested a meeting with Khan late last year. Khan declined the meeting request and told Twitter that she was "troubled by Twitter's delays and the obstacles that these delays are creating for the FTC's investigation."

The FTC investigation reportedly focuses on whether Twitter is complying with conditions in a May 2022 settlement with the agency in which it agreed to pay a $150 million penalty for targeting ads at users with phone numbers and email addresses collected from those users when they enabled two-factor authentication. Twitter was already subject to a 2011 settlement that prohibited the company from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices.

Jordan dismisses FTC answer as “pretextual”

Jordan claims the FTC has gone beyond the stated purpose of the investigation. "On March 27, 2023, you sent a response letter seeking to justify the scope of the FTC's inquiry into Twitter by linking it to the terms of a narrower FTC Order related to Twitter's privacy practices," Jordan wrote, arguing that "the FTC's requests to Twitter were not limited to the scope of the Order, making the FTC's justification pretextual at best."

Jordan objected to the FTC asking for "the identities of the journalists with whom it was engaging." That's a reference to a December 13, 2022, request the FTC made related to Musk's release of the so-called "Twitter Files."

The FTC asked Twitter to identify any journalists who were "granted any type of access to the Company's internal communications (e.g., Slack, emails)" or to internal documents and files since Musk bought the company. The FTC request noted that journalist Bari Weiss "was reportedly given access to Twitter's employee systems, added to its Slack channel(s), and given a company laptop," and that she and other journalists were provided "extensive, unfiltered access to Twitter's internal communication and systems."

The FTC request was shown in the Judiciary Committee staff report titled, "The weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission: An agency's overreach to harass Elon Musk's Twitter." As reported by The Wall Street Journal today, the FTC letter also asked Twitter to say "whether the journalists were background-checked, and what steps the company took to ensure they didn't gain unauthorized access to sensitive user data."

Khan told Jordan in her reply letter last month that the FTC was concerned about journalists potentially being given access to user information. "Since the threat to Twitter users' privacy and security can arise any time anyone outside of Twitter is accessing users' personal information, there is no journalist exemption to the FTC's order," she wrote.

GOP accused of pushing Musk’s narrative

At a hearing last month, Democrat Stacey Plaskett reportedly accused Republicans of using "cherry-picked, out-of-context emails and screenshots designed to promote [Musk's] chosen narrative."

Plaskett is a nonvoting delegate to the House from the US Virgin Islands. According to The Wall Street Journal, she said that "Musk is helping you out politically, and you're going out of your way to promote and protect him."

The Jordan-chaired Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was created in January after Republicans took control of the House. In February, Jordan subpoenaed Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft for documents related to what he called "the federal government's reported collusion with Big Tech to suppress free speech."

Separately, New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg sued Jordan and other members of the Judiciary Committee in a federal court yesterday over their alleged attempts to interfere with the prosecution and investigation of former President Donald Trump. Bragg's lawsuit criticized Jordan and his committee for overstepping their authority, saying: "Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions."

Daniel Ellsberg’s Ongoing Courage

April 12, 2023

No matter how much the defenders of the militaristic status quo have tried to relegate the Pentagon Papers whistleblower to the past, he has insisted on being present, writes Norman Solomon.

Daniel Ellsberg speaks at Free Manning protest at Fort Meade, Maryland, June 1, 2013. (Steve Rhodes/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

By Norman Solomon
Common Dreams

In just a few words — “those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future” — George Orwell summed up why narratives about history can be crucial.

And so, ever since the final helicopter liftoff from the U.S. Embassy’s roof in Saigon on April 30, 1975, the retrospective meaning of the Vietnam War has been a matter of intense dispute.

The dominant spin has been dismal and bipartisan. “We went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people,” Jimmy Carter declared soon after entering the White House in early 1977. “We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese.”

During the next decade, presidents ordered direct American military interventions on a much smaller scale, while the rationales were equally mendacious. Ronald Reagan ordered the 1983 invasion of Grenada, and George H.W. Bush ordered the 1989 invasion of Panama.

In early 1991, President Bush triumphantly proclaimed that reluctance to use U.S. military might after the Vietnam War had at last been vanquished. His exultation came after a five-week air war that enabled the Pentagon to kill upwards of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

“It’s a proud day for America,” Bush said. “And, by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

Two decades later — delivering what the White House titled “Remarks by the President at the Commemoration Ceremony of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War” — Barack Obama did not even hint that the U.S. war in Vietnam was based on deception.

Speaking in May 2012, after he had more than tripled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Obama said: “Let us resolve to never forget the costs of war, including the terrible loss of innocent civilians—not just in Vietnam, but in all wars.”

Moments later, Obama flatly claimed: “When we fight, we do so to protect ourselves because it’s necessary.”

Such lies are the opposite of what Daniel Ellsberg has been illuminating for more than five decades. He says about the Vietnam War: “It wasn’t that we were on the wrong side; we were the wrong side.”

Outlooks like that are rarely heard or read in U.S. mass media. And overall, news outlets have much preferred to make only sanitized references to Ellsberg as a historic figure.

Much less acceptable is the Daniel Ellsberg who, since the end of the Vietnam War, was arrested nearly a hundred times for engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience against nuclear weapons and other aspects of the warfare industry.

Daniel Ellsberg protesting with anti-war group Code Pink in 2006. 

(Elvert Barnes, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

After working inside the U.S. war machinery, Ellsberg became its highest-ranking operative to opt out — bravely throwing sand in its gears by revealing the top-secret Pentagon Papers, at the risk of spending the rest of his life in prison. The 7,000-page study exposed lies about U.S. policies in Vietnam told by four successive presidents.

During the 52 years since then, Ellsberg has continually provided key information and cogent analysis of pretexts for U.S. wars. And he has focused on what they’ve actually meant in human terms.

Ellsberg has explained, most comprehensively in his 2017 landmark book The Doomsday Machine, what is worst of all: The nation’s military-industrial-media establishment refuses to acknowledge, let alone mitigate, the insanity of the militarism that is logically headed toward nuclear war.

Helping to prevent nuclear war has been an overriding preoccupation of Ellsberg’s adult life. In The Doomsday Machine—subtitled “Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner”—he shares exceptional insights from working for the doomsday system as an insider and then working to defuse the doomsday system as an outsider.

An upsurge of media attention to Ellsberg resulted from the emergence of other heroic whistleblowers.

In 2010, U.S. Army private Chelsea Manning was arrested for leaking a vast quantity of documents that exposed countless lies and war crimes.

Three years later, a former employee of a National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, went public with proof of mass surveillance by a digital Big Brother with mind-boggling reach.

By then, Ellsberg’s stature as the Pentagon Papers whistleblower had risen to near-veneration among many liberals in media and others happy to consign the virtues of such whistleblowing to the Vietnam War era.

But Ellsberg emphatically rejected the “Ellsberg good, Snowden bad” paradigm, which appealed to some eminent apologists for the status quo (such as Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote a specious New Yorker piece contrasting the two). Ellsberg has always vigorously supported Snowden, Manning and other “national security” whistleblowers at every turn.

Ellsberg disclosed in a public letter in early March that he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, with a prognosis of three to six months to live. Now, in the closing time of his life, he continues to speak out with urgency, in particular about the need for genuine diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia, as well as the U.S. and China, to avert nuclear war.

Many recent interviews are posted on the Ellsberg website. Ellsberg remains busy talking with journalists as well as activist groups. Last Sunday, vibrant and eloquent as ever, he spoke on a livestream videos ponsored by Progressive Democrats of America.

[On Tuesday Ellsberg was presented with the Sam Adams Award for Integrity at his home in Berkeley, California.]

Grassroots activists are organizing for the national Daniel Ellsberg Week, April 24-30, “a week of education and action,” which the Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy, based at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, is co-sponsoring with the RootsAction Education Fund (where I’m national director).

A central theme is “to celebrate the life’s work of Daniel Ellsberg, to take action in support of whistleblowers and peacemakers, and to call on state and local governments around the country to honor the spirit of difficult truth-telling with a commemorative week.”

No matter how much the defenders of the militaristic status quo have tried to relegate Daniel Ellsberg to the past, he has insisted on being present — with a vast reservoir of knowledge, an awesome intellect, deep compassion and commitment to nonviolent resistance — challenging systems of mass murder that go by other names.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

This article is from Common Dreams.