This is how you know you live in a bubble.
PBS is unbelievably slanted; you just happen to agree with them in general.
Here is the CEO of PBS saying insane things about the truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYXrhOXkwU
"The truth is a distraction"
That is the CEO of NPR, not PBS.
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
> accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
People often equate "Public" with meaning "middle-center" or "apolitical". Many would claim National Public Radio (NPR) is middle-center, politically-speaking.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
that's a mischaracterization of what neutral or apolitical is.
The broadcaster doesnt have to report that killing puppies is good once in a while!
I'm confident you understand the difference between killing puppies and the bias, partisan reporting that occurs on many "news" stations.