"The time is currently 07:07am, President Trump claims that the moon has been colonized by xyglorgs. Today's forcast is mostly sunny with a 30% chance of rain." Really? So you don't think that journalism has any role in fact-finding? What, it's just supposed to repeat whatever someone says without even attempting to verify it? So the next part -- "Today's forecast" -- they could just say "well the National Weather Service says it's going to be mostly sunny, but the crazy person outside of my apartment says that today is the day Blue Hellfire will Reign from the Skies.... Reporting both sides, NPR"

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?