ichMael - (First off, when you refer to a "Democrat" regime, you tip your hand to show the bias you bring.    The attempt to change the centuries-old name of the Democratic Party (originally the Democratic-Republican Party) dates back to the McCarthy era and is an attempt to manipulate the language in a way that evokes a less favorable reaction to the party's name. It's kind of like calling Israel a "Jew state" instead of a "Jewish state.")


Public broadcasting used to have much more of a liberal bent than it does now (if you think of being pro-civil-rights, etc., as "liberal"). But its public funding has been cut so much that it has relied more and more on grants from private industry, for at least a decade or two, that at best most of its shows try to be as "neutral" as possible, and even bend over backwards not to report stories that would anger their corporate sponsors. They now censor "news" content that might cast those corporate sponsors in a bad light.

When I hear NPR, I don't hear much content in the news shows that's obviously liberal or conservative.   Same goes for PBS. Some shows, e.g., Bill Moyer, have a liberal bent; others, like Wall Street Week, have a pro-business slant; others like Charlie Rose seem pretty neutral.

Conservative radio sprang up when Bill Clinton was elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress.    It was well funded by those who wanted a return to Reagan-type Republican conservatism.

There is not "plenty of balance" on radio and TV, even with public stations included, when so many stories are suppressed either because their content isn't what the big business powers want aired.    So many important issues and stories never get discussed at any length outside of the internet, newspapers, and some "progressive" liberal radio and TV shows. And I'm not just talking about "opinion," I'm talking about the presentation of facts.