Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point me to a good source that actually gives equal opportunity to multiple sides of a story? Because I rarely see that (regardless of which side), the whole reason why I subscribe to things like ground.news.
Axios does a pretty solid job of covering point and counterpoint on their stories not bias towards "equality" for different perspectives, but actually covering fully the different angles of a story. See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate
There's no mention of why they want to defund CPB beyond "Trump administration efforts to strip funding." Muh Project 2025 is referenced briefly, but the rationale isn't explored.
They provide quotes from those opposed "unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions,... gutting" without the For Side saying anything e.g. that this is no longer necessary due to media landscape.
It doesn't consider whether it's necessary and while saying it will be a loss to rural news never looks at the fact it's used less and less there, whether gap will be filled and in part has.
It centers the negative consequences, it has very limited perspective by supporters and centrally frames Project 2025 despite questionable connection. There's clearly a tilt, but it performs neutrality that less critical might accept.
"The choice of what to include and what to leave out, what to emphasize and what to downplay, inevitably reflects a point of view."