Any attempt to whitewash even aspects of it is in part giving credit to it and I'm just not going to carry Musk's water on this. It's a petty move by a petty person, who uses the platform that he bought to further his new best buddies interests by fomenting distrust in media institutions that he can't buy or control.
Personally I think it’s a stupid idea in general. But that’s because I’m against any organisation attempting to establish itself as an authority over the concept of the truth.
Stars and Stripes has a mix of funding, including about half its budget from the department of defense, but has editorial independence; although I imagine it's hard not to be influenced.
Even Voice of America has safeguards for editorial independence, although its budget is fully state funded.
Sorry, but that is factually incorrect.
If you have proof that the NPR is a mouthpiece for the US government then now would be a fine time to provide it, otherwise it is just trying to throw shade in the exact same way that Elon Musk is trying to.
How is this not true of any funding of media?
At least with government funding—even if there is outright editorial control—in a democratic country, you as a citizen have the ability to vote on how you think that funding and control should be exercised. Furthermore, it is massively easier to get laws in place that mandate transparency for government-funded entities than for private ones, so whatever influences there may be on their reporting would be much more visible.
many conspiracy theorists will say that it's impossible to prove their conspiracy theory (in this case, any actual bias), but that's their problem, not the world's
maybe they can spend more time interviewing, investigating, doing statistical analysis, etc to find any evidence of their conspiracy theories, and less time just coming up with the theories?
> given the miniscule amount of funding in question here, doesn't even seem to be the case
According to NPR themselves, federal funding is essential for their ongoing existence.
> Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.
> The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...
There is also not an “appearance” of conflicting interests here. There is factually a conflicting interest between relying on an entity for funding, and an expectation that you’ll provide impartial media coverage of them.
This exists regardless of how small you think this reliance is. But even then, your attempt to minimise it is directly contradicted by NPR, who claim it is “essential” to their ability to operate.
As for your opinion about how much of a conflict of interest or appearance thereof, if you trust NPR as a reliable source on this matter, then we can trust them also saying they have editorial independence (read: no bias)
your assertions of an expectation are similarly unconvincing, it's literally just you claiming as such, when others recognize that, like I can receive a dollar and not be controlled by the giver, so can NPR