"Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook. He works in an unrelated division."
At the very least an editors note disclosing such a substantial conflict ought to be at the top of the page, not the bottom. This really colors my opinion of NPR’s editorial and ethical standards.
I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.
Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.
The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest.
I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.
This is exactly what NPR and the journalist has done here.
“I've been covering kids + tech since ~2007. The Art of Screen Time pubbed in 2018. I've spoken on these topics at Aspen Ideas, Atlantic Fest, Apple, Google, SXSW. Collaborated with Mozilla. Adam's startup was acquired by Facebook in 2019. He works in hardware.”
https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-B...
(For an example of a source that has the same goal but does a better job, see something like PBS Newshour. They've got a pretty thorough leftward bias, but it doesn't compromise the quality of their reporting nearly as severely as it does NPR's).
The one surprise here is the claim that The Atlantic is farther left than the other sources mentioned, as far left as MSNBC. I still remember them as the first mainstream source brsve enough to break the taboo of acknowledging that the lunatic illiberalism sweeping the country had a solid foothold on the left too, after a couple years of being shocked by the phenomenon and the media's silence on it. They continue to publish taboo-breaking analysis; I can't think of any analogue the NYT to Bruenig or Friesersdorf.
Eg: Stratchery for tech, Sinocism for China, Derek Lowe for drug development, Razib Khan for Genomics based anthropology etc. I also follow a select few twitter handles that do all the 1st source reporting on specific topics. This is super useful for war/contentious zones like the Middle East & Kashmir, etc. Statistically sound sources like 538 and Pew Research tend to be pretty good too.
In some cases, reading somewhat biased sources on each side is also helpful. Sources like Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Greenwald, etc., all have their biases, but they have a high moral bar. They never lie, but their biases do make them opine in ways that can sometimes include jumping to conclusions or purposely ignoring possible causations. Either ways, they are a part of healthy media diet. I generally like things coming out of the Rat-o-sphere & Scott Alexander, as they have a high bar on what constitutes a good source or proof.
The Economist and The Atlantic have been doing relatively good even handed reporting. NYT seems like it is in an internal crisis, but it does occasionally produce gems when reporting as 1st sources. WaPo/Guardian/BBC have long stopped being worth my time. In India, I really like The Print.
Hope that helps.