I find my local PBS member station to not only be of high quality, it also has a refreshing take on news that doesn't depend on fearmongering or thinly-veiled advertisements being floated as human interest pieces.
If I wanted a counterpoint to PBS's left-leaning biases, where could I find content with a right-leaning bias, that isn't sprinkled with religion, screaming hot heads, and other unpleasantness?
On the U.S. side, intellectually oriented conservative media has really had trouble with the Trump era. The more highbrow outlets were never on board with Trump, but maintaining an anti-Trump or Trump-skeptical line on the U.S. right basically dooms you to irrelevance in the current climate, since only a smallish band of "never-Trumper" conservatives are still tuning in to that political position. There are a few of those, like The American Interest, which keep going on a small circulation.
For actual left bias, see: the baffler, the intercept, jacobin, mother jones, counterpunch, the nation, and oddly teen vogue. If PBS is left, those are surely falling off the spectrum.
Finally podcasts cater across the spectrum. I can’t help with specific examples here, but you can certainly find anyone from anarchists and communists to democratic socialists to liberals to libertarians to blatant far right wing shit (monarchism?, “racial realists”, “trumpists”).
One of those things is not like the others.
I can't remember ever seeing a "right-wing" viewpoint in Bloomberg's opinion pages. As far as I can tell the only op-eds they publish are pro-gun control, anti-income inequality or just generally anti-Trump.
There is a big gap between those sort of biases and Not-Trump-At-Any-Cost or Must-Sell-Public-Assets. Some biases are productive and have motivations which can be honestly articulated and are broadly reasonable.
That said, frontline occasionally covers things the news hour won’t and can be a serious investigative journalism outlet.
It may be as many as 80% of the population would support evidence-based biases, in theory. There are still problems but it is a big step up from inflexible partisanship.
Sure, the topics picked can very well be political, although that has degraded somewhat to topics that generate clicks. But that is nevertheless a huge problem and I believe correlated to the low trust in media overall.
Or look at elections. A press staunchly favoring a candidate wouldn't be able to hold that candidate accountable. That is another huge problem, because that is their primary raison d'être.
Some even go that far that a worse candidate is preferable in that situation if it means the press as representatives of the public reports critically. Could explain some things.
The last discussion about that has been with fundamentalists that had a similar critique about neutrality.
We could also talk about how feasible it is to achieve neutrality. But that wouldn't be the point in most cases.
In secular education for example neutrality has a specific meaning. That pupils are to be empowered to make choices and that views are not imposed on them. End of story.
It isn't that hard to transfer these principles to journalism. Does journalism try to inform as best as possible so people can make better decisions? Or should they be nudged towards certain perspectives.
The former variant would be the neutral approach. Pretty simple if you think about it.
And btw, I agree with your definition of neutrality. I just don’t think PBS markedly improves in this respect (empowering viewers) from any other cable news station, they simply have less obnoxious production value and are therefore a more palatable, or at best equally palatable, version of the other center to center left publications I listed.