See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB.
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."
Equating a for-profit news corporation's politics with how they handle a singular topic like Gaza would be a bit reductive.
NPR is better than most as their are not owned privately by a billionaire or collectively by billionaire shareholders. But they play the “both sides are reasonable” game annoyingly often with every issue, as if there is some sort of sensible middle ground to be reached somewhere between Obama and Hitler.
Seeing Gaza in particular covered this way - one the most appalling human rights catastrophes of my lifetime aided and funded by my own government - was too much for me to stomach.