In the comments there I claimed that the funding of a media outlet (assuming it's not minuscule and insignificant) is part of the political process - and thus on-topic for this site. Am I wrong?
The political process includes public self-reflection, and the formation of public opinion on political matters. That means that mass media - to the extent it is part of this process, i.e. at least to the extent it influences public opinion on political matters.
Now, the funding of the media is relevant even as an aspect of the relevance of media overall. But additionally, funding and de-funding of media outlets is a political move or stance - by governments, by private corporations, by NGOs which are fronts for the above, or by actual large groups of interested individuals. When this is done, the media landscape is affected, public opinion is affected, and actual political decisions are affected.
So it's interesting and relevant to discuss how, say, Rupert Murdoch controls Fox which props up part of the US right-wing; or how Sheldon Adelson supports Netanyahu by bankrolling the "Israel Hayom" daily. And it's also interesting and relevant to ask "Who funds this media outlet".
Questions about how media companies are supported is interesting from a political perspective, and should be on-topic. Large companies whose main business is not creating media that make political statements (in the form of advertisements they purchase or other) should also be fair game, but questions about non-media companies should probably be limited to asking about who their majority shareholders are (since that will likely be public information), as well as any government sources of funding they may be taking advantage of which is outside of the course of their normal business.
E.g. If Budweiser promotes a specific political cause during a Super Bowl Ad, a question asking about their majority shareholders should be on-topic, a question asking if they are supporting the cause due to some way they can make money is on-topic, a question about Budweiser's 3rd Quarter profits last year should be off-topic.
Questions about media companies' sponsors, lists of advertisers, and, in the case of some media personalities, the list of companies that have products for sale on their website should all be on-topic.
A question about government subsidies in the context of any specific company I think isn't impacted (and should be on-topic), since the question is probably more about the subsidy itself than about the company.
The question mentions the media company calls out the fact that they do not receive any government funding. I think asking about that particular source of funding for a private organization would be on-topic, such as "Why is this media company being funded by the government," or "What government program is this company taking advantage of." Both of those questions boil down to pretty much the same one: what is the policy goal or reasoning behind giving tax payer money to [some private enterprise or charitable organization].
Asking about sources of private funding of a business would be too similar to asking how the hotdog vendor down the road stays in business and not something really addressable by politics. It may also open the door to letting in any question asking about private funding for any type of organization that could, in someone's mind, be deemed 'political' (which is not much of a discriminator).
Since that company doesn't receive any government funding directly, I would argue the question is off-topic.
The private organization's decision not to receive government funding seems to be to be the exact opposite of a matter of public policy. There is no public political process that determines a private organization's choice of whether or not to apply for available government funding (at least for the vast majority). I do not believe a satisfactory answer to the question will lead any user to a better understanding of any political subject, which seems to me like a basic requirement for a question to be on-topic.
I think there are multiple on-topic questions around the subject of the question. For example, while I do not see them making the claim explicitly on their site, the site appears to be making the implicit claim that being sponsored only by viewers means they will be less biased toward the government or corporations. A question about how their biases differ from traditionally sponsored media would seem to me to be on-topic, since the bias of news media has a substantial impact on the public's perception of and interaction with politics.
On the other hand, if your question is really whether they are telling the truth that they only receive funding from viewers and not from corporations/governments, you should ask on Skeptics.