A profit motive is not necessarily bad. Likewise, there are other ulterior motives that may inform "public broadcasting." There's a fine line between publicly-funded journalism and state-sponsored propaganda.
No, but they haven't not, either. NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics.
Ask anyone on the half of the country who doesn't vote blue, or necessarily get along with the latest developments in gender identity, of NPR gives their worldview any coverage whatsoever that isn't bashing and negative.
Also, I consistently hear NPR play the same game as the NYT: reach out to mythical "real America" voters, interview them, be tolerant of their perspectives even if the overall context is unfavorable towards conservative/reactionary/regressive viewpoints. You can practically hear the hosts' backs crack as they bend over backwards to try to be pleasant to both these interview subjects, and/or their intellectual leading lights.
But when was the last time I heard NPR interview an actual bona fide leftist? I don't think I've ever heard this on any of the flagship shows. Democracy Now, out of WNYC does, but that's not an NPR production. There's an almost complete absence of left politics on NPR (as on American media in general), whereas "due consideration" to equivalent positions on the right appear to be part of journalism's civic duty.
So yeah, they don't exact coddle red-leaning politics and people, but they do seek them out and try to let them have a voice amidst the stories that suggest that they are probably wrong.
Left-leaning politics? Forget that. You're not hearing that on NPR or pretty much anywhere else in this country. BTW, MSNBC is not even the exception that proves the rule.
I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent.
It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on.
I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to point out how difficult it is to have a coherent discussion when basic terms are ill-defined.
They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country.
It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Political scientists don't have much problem defining them in unambiguous ways, but our political culture is full of attempts to obscure their meaning.
I would agree that there's a legitimate argument about whether or not 1-dimensional axes are a useful way to talk about political ideas. There's a lot of merit in the 2D approach that many libertarians like to use. But that doesn't change the fact that these terms are well quite well defined by those who understand the subject matter, and deliberately obfuscated by those who see problems if people were to really understand the differences and purposes of the ideas described by these terms.
I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation.
You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion.
It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion.
Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.
No, I think it's just you. The American centre is much more libertarian than the centre in other democracies, but there isn't some weird cabal redefining leftism - it just isn't as popular there.
"They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth" - how? By whom?
You're right that left politics are not as popular here. But in the Progressive period (1880-1920 as I mentioned), the US was possibly the home of the most popular, most powerful leftish movement anywhere on the planet. So what happened ...
> how? By whom?
Goodness. There are so many books on this. You could start with something obvious like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", which is about a somewhat different issue but covers the way that the power structures in the US moved the Overton window in various ways to make leftish politics appear out of the mainstream.
This book does a reasonably good job of covering both how socialism itself shot itself in the foot in the US and how it was shot in the other foot by the existing power structures use of propaganda/media:
> NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics
Niche, eh? Have you checked the listener numbers? Yes, Carlson's show on Fox beats all NPR shows, but NPR's prime time shows are consistently among the most consumed daily media events in the USA. Shows like "All Things Considered" generally (but not always) beat out supposedly "trend-forming" cable TV shows.
As for "notoriously biased", that's typically a weasel phrase that means something like "People are saying that NPR is biased". So what do you mean by "notoriously"?
I grew up in a country where the idea of "objective journalism" was regarded as idiotic, and all journalism was accepted to have a POV. By those standards, NPR stands out as one the least clearly biased and most intelligent radio journalism examples around.
What I would consider more important complaints about NPR are the fecklessness of essentially all of its interviews, in which there is an absolute refusal to hold an interviewee's feet to the fire, regardless of who they are or what they have written, said, done or represent. Like most of the US media, they throw mostly softball questions at thos with power, and on the odd occasion that they ask something a bit more pointed, refusal to answer (or just utter evasion) is met by ... moving on the next question.
I care about these general characteristics of NPR journalism far more than I do any particular handling of a particular issue.
NPR is "notorious" because it carries itself with an air of impartiality, while definitely being partial.
Where CNN and Fox are openly biased and understood to be so, NPR and its fans tend to argue that it isn't - but 99% of people making that claim vote blue, and disproportionately towards the Bernie end of blue.
I am not sure that there's widespread belief outside of Fox News viewers that CNN is "openly biased and understood to be so".
If you had grown up in a country where, as I mentioned, "unbiased journalism" was assumed to be a lie from the start, I think you'd read whether or not NPR "carries itself with an air of impartiality" quite differently.
Most of the actual leftists that I know find NPR to be biased in quite the opposite direction than you seem to. They are irritated by its relentlessly pro-business positions, its endless interviews with conservative politicians, even discredited ones, and its almost complete failure to feature actual left-ish ideas other then when a specific politician (e.g. Sanders or AOC) makes a speech about something related.
I mentioned up-thread that I believe that NPR's bias is not really towards particular political or even social positions, but towards a genial defense of "things more or less as they are". They are a supremely "don't rock the boat (too much)" media outlet, and as a result rarely feature voices and ideas from the edges of the current Overton Window, let alone beyond it.
I mean no harm, but you definitely sound like you're on the left.
Not only do you imagine that CNN isn't seen as left (except by the only pillar of right-ness you've named, Fox) - but you know plenty of people who are left of CNN, which is already left of the median voter.
That you think NPR is a status quo defender - when their coverage of anything that touches on culture topics is extremely and consistently progressive - reaffirms that.
Please understand it's fine to be left-wing, but you will see the world as controlled by nefarious powers and agendas if you don't recognise that you are.
For example -they couldn't make a July 4th post without immediately turning it into a People's History seminar with a lecture about women's and indigenous rights.
As someone who votes blue, they do not. In addition, their coverage of Jeff Bezos on his space journey really drove home that they aren't without external influence.
As someone who self-identifies as Hispanic, I find NPRs insistence on the term LatinX offensive.
I’m a middle of the road New Yorker but NPR pushes their way out of journalism and into advocacy any time gender or sexual identity enter the conversation.
And due to the risk of being labled anti-Semitic I’ll stay away from their coverage of anything Israel related.
And yet elsewhere in this comment thread we have people saying that "NPR is the Ikea of radio". So it seems that people's take on "what NPR is" is fairly varied, and it seems likely that it varies in part based on specific "touchstone" issues that are important to a particular group of people, but far from everyone.
