I think it is amusing that people try to peg each news outlet as "left" or "right" as if they are an 18-year-old who votes whilst standing on a seesaw.
First, political views are not one-dimensional and so the "left"/"right" and far-extreme-ultra game is just "are they on my side or are they considered bonkers by my brethren?" games.
I believe that it's far better to consider news outlets as a product of their sponsors vs. their intended audience. By and large, they are all corporations trying to maximize revenue by attracting and maintaining a large audience for their materials, thereby paying their sponsors and advertisers the revenue they need.
So, they will produce stories that engage the audience. Whether that is enraging us, stoking controversy, appealing to us with smooth words: doesn't matter. There's no such thing as bad engagement. The corollary is that they don't want to lose audience members so any slide into supporting unpopular causes or candidates or ideologies is nipped in the bud.
Folks also can't seem to accept that editorial opinions or ideologies can shift, especially for example, if a news outlet supports "whoever/whatever is currently in power this year" or as a contrarian, opposes them, and riles up the opposition parties.
Wikipedia's relentless blacklisting and deprecation of "unreliable sources" is a great public experiment in this regard. If you really want a nice left-leaning anodyne view of the world, go with Wikipedia and "blacklist" or stop paying attention to any source they don't like.
Only people on the right think NPR is on the left. NPR is the most middle of the road you can get. Just because they report facts that contradict the administration doesn't make them left leaning.
Right, so it is broadly seen as more on the left than the right. Or, to be glib: only a radical leftist would think NPR doesn't lean left is far more correct than your initial assertion.
Have you heard the phrase "reality has a left wing bias"? People perceive highly factual information as left wing.
For example, if I told you yesterday the President made a statement, and then repeated the second half of that statement, which is a sign of dementia, you'd probably accuse me of being far left, even though that information is just simply factual.
That plus the fact that if you dig into the reports, the two that said "barely left" even admit that they only chose that because their rating system doesn't allow for "center".
I’m curious about how you would objectively define “woke”. I’d also be curious about how NPR scores on those measures relative to other comparable media.
EDIT: And if you didn't mean it in that way, and were serious, consider looking at e.g. Ground News' rating of NPR: https://ground.news/interest/npr. They (and others) clearly show NPR to have (slight) left bias. This means you are almost certainly going to see woke perspectives there from time to time, and more often than other less-biased or right-biased sources.
I know hard core leftists love to bash NPR/PBS, but as a non-leftist, non-centrist, non-right wing person, I definitely find NPR to have a left wing bias. Not as left wing as Democracy Now, etc - but definitely left leaning.
I think it's important not to tie identity to any part of the spectrum (e.g. "I'm center left").
I have opinions on issues, and they can vary across the spectrum. On some issues (e.g. healthcare) I'm far to the left (well, in the US - would just be considered "normal" left in other countries). On things like immigration I'm either center or right (everyone seems to have their own idea of what "center" means). On gun control I'm both left and right - I'd like to outlaw them, but am opposed to some gun control initiatives.
On several social issues I can be far to the left on some and far to the right on others.
In an election, I voted both for a Green Party candidate and a Republican candidate (different offices, of course).
What I see is people who identify on the spectrum may have strong opinions on some issues (e.g. left), and then they adopt the leftist viewpoint on other issues - in order to be consistent. In my experience, these people are also more likely to follow "leaders" than be opinionated.
I don't know that one needs to identify with part of the political spectrum for it to be an accurate description. It sounds like you're broadly left leaning, but that assessment of you doesn't need to do anything to how you view yourself. I'm likewise very left leaning on just about everything, but don't really consider it to be part of my identity
I would agree with your assessment. It's just that if I go and say "It's OK to deport undocumented people who came as children"[1], people will have a hard time calling me a leftist.
But since it's not my identity, things can change.
When I was younger, my views were more consistent with the right. At some point, after learning a lot of realities, a lot of those views moved to the left. Since it was never part of my identity, it was easier to shift. No internal strife, crisis, etc.
[1] My views on this topic are more nuanced than this, but I phrase it this way to illustrate the dichotomy one can have in politics that people fail to comprehend.
It's not a clear divide between right and left, and NYT, the Atlantic, and NPR stans right wing voices constantly, have constantly used their editorialization to promote right wing ideals, and have gone out of their way to center right wing voices to give the appearance of being centrist to the right, which has had a direct impact in their perception as not really left wing by any of the left.
Now the center right is supporting concentration camps like "alligator alcatraz" so the overton window has shifted a lot in the last ten years.
