Framing things one sided and always choosing people who will support that side is hardly journalism. But mostly, just report on interesting things (subjective to NPR and trending things) and attribute things to their sources. Don't make claims without proof. If they want to report on crazy weather guy, they can. When they give weather, name the source. Which radio usually does anyway. and when they say, "blah blah, without evidence, blah" it is not a fact check, but an opinion statement, claimed as fact. Opinions are not a form of fact checking, and that's the bias I argue against. By all means, "Trump ordered the assassination of Hillary Clinton" They report that and it's balanced. But add "without cause" and it is no longer balanced. I want the public to hear raw news that they interpret rather than be told what to think. Sure, bring on guests from multiple political backgrounds to say their piece, but the host has to remain neutral. Think of it like police reporting. Describe what happened. Don't guess, don't add extra information, don't try to infer intent. Or, don't take government money and do what you want. Most advertisers won't support people who speak against them, why would the government be any different?

I will admit I do personally find the "claimed without evidence" line to be somewhat pedantic at times, even though in most instances it's warranted IMO. But I think the idea of journalism just being a "police blotter"-like RSS feed falls short of what most people expect and demand from their journalistic instiutions, which is to find facts and holds people in power (especially those in government) accountable for claims that are made when those claims contradict known facts of reality. So let's say "Trump claimed there are Mexican rapists on the moon" is a fact. However NPR knows another fact that there are NOT, indeed, rapists on the moon. Or, if we want to be really unbiased, "there is no evidence for Mexican rapists on the moon." Which fact(s) should be reported to NPR's audience?