put a better way, theoretically it's possible for an entity that has received a small amount of funds from the state, to be controlled by that state, just like SpaceX, which is state funded, could be controlled by that state, and just like theoretically I could give you a dollar and then control you, but any actual accusation of such or implication thereof would need actual evidence behind it, or else such conspiracy theories based only on incentives and no evidence can be dismissed out of hand.
No evidence of bias is required to establish that a conflict of interest exists. One reason that people are interested in knowing when a conflict of interest exists, is that is generally not possible to prove what influences are motivating decision making.
evidence of bias is required to establish bias, even if there's the appearance of a conflict of interest, which given the miniscule amount of funding in question here, doesn't even seem to be the case, either.
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?
I’m not alleging any bias. I’m stating that the funding model creates a conflict of interest, which is simply factually correct.
> 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.
if there is no bias, there is no issue, even if there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, which given the small portion of funding in question here, there doesn't even seem to be
I’m not alleging there is no bias either. The reason that managing conflicting interests is important in the first place is because it’s not possible to objectively measure their influence.
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.
I'm not alleging that you're alleging that there's no bias either, but either you have convincing evidence there is, or we fall back to there not being any until you do (and your claims that the conspiracy theory is impossible to prove are unconvincing, many conspiracy theorists say the same thing)
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
