Yeah, it's an interesting problem to solve and someone really should do it. In fact, I am more and more convinced that the aggregators of the world will end up being the true arbiters of what is and what is not biased. NPR is a fantastic service IMO. However, it takes money from organizations and citizens alike. As you mentioned, it also takes tax dollars. It's the tax dollars that keep it "honest", or at least that is how it is supposed to work. What I find is that media such as NPR is forced to present fringe ideas such as the thought that Global Warming isn't occurring as "main stream" because it takes federal dollars and has to appease the portion of the electorate that is... well... crazy. How do we fix this? We have private news stations that are dependent on ad revenue and market share. These stations: CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the like compete for your time and attention. Unfortunately, negativity and sensationalism is what wins that attention. So a market driven news source is out. -Total piece of shit. We all know it. How do we fix this? What is the solution? Obviously, money needs to be out of the equation. I think a media source funded 50% by Soros and 50% by the Koch brothers would be awesome and compelling. No joke.
I think the structure of of NPR and PBS are pretty decent. Because they're not totally funded by the federal government and not completely funded by their own donor base. We get the best of both worlds. High quality news and no ads.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big NPR fan. I literally answer phones for them during pledge drives. But, I think if someone like an Elon Musk or Bill Gates started a news organization that focused strictly on data and providing information without editorializing. Or if they did have subjectivity in there, they genuinely showed both sides arguments, I'd check that out. That would be worth supporting somehow.