I do not understand how this fits into any conventional political worldview. Why should the public taxpayer dollars fund a journalism outfit that then follows its own agenda rather than the one set forth by the democratically elected government? How is this democratic?

From 1972 to 1988, anti-socialist Republicans won four elections by landslide margins (8, 10, 18, and 23 points). The coverage of NPR during that time was quite sympathetic toward socialism, and certainly didn't reflect the ideology of the electorate. (My dad, who is a soft-on-socialism Democrat, called it "Radio Moscow"). How does it make sense for taxpayers to pay government journalists who have a fundamentally different view of the world?

Imagine the opposite: Obama's America being forced to pay for journalists who approach the world from the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalism. How would that be democratic?

The government is run by politicians, so I don’t see that being a possibility anymore.

So this article is obviously very American, but I'm assuming high quality state-funded (idk about 'government' - funded) journalism isn't exactly rare around the world?

Here in Ireland RTÉ (heavily state funded) provides free, high quality, independent journalism that doesn't pull punches on reporting on failures of the state, including government. The brits have the BBC, which from what I gather works similarly.

Sample of two, but I'd wager this sisnt exactly a rare model.