You're extrapolating from the evidence of one event to all (or most) events. What you're calling "journalistic malpractice" is possibly an editor with a story in need of a picture (everything has to be visual to sell the story), asking the photog pool for a suitable image. This happens all the time. Timing matters though. In the instance you quote, if the original story was published before the police charged the attackers, then the journalists made an honest mistake. Otherwise we'd have to wait for the entire judicial process to reach completion before making any comment. E.g. you seem to implying that because they were charged by police, the attackers of the vehicle were in the wrong, but that can't be known until a conviction is reached. The point, I'm making is that journalism is an exercise in trying to parse and publish what is known 'at the time'.
I think your comment about mainstream media is mostly unfair, as the same accusations can be made against most non-mainstream media. I'd also suggest that NPR are one of the better mainstream media orgs, but that's just my opinion. The parent poster made one case for why - they are willing to host their own critics. Not too many news orgs are willing to do that.
No, they had a narrative they wanted to push: "right-wing attackers victimize noble protesters", and since there were only a few examples available, they had to pull stories and footage from the many instances of when protesters attacked vehicles.
I don't know you personally, but if you're like 99% of left-leaning urban professionals, you're not aware of those instances, because you're only exposed to a portion of what's happening. I'd suggest following a broad spectrum of people on social media from the left, center, and right. You'll be surprised what the mainstream left media leaves out.
Right-wing media does the same thing, by the way. You really have to watch both to give anything resembling reality. It's a big problem, and it's getting worse.
Even (decidedly left-wing) Brian Stelter featured this problem on this week's Reliable Sources on CNN. For example, mainstream media is happy to cover what they view as the malfeasance of the federal law enforcement officers in Portland, but they fail to show the acts of the rioters that played a role in their deployment (burning buildings, destruction of property, menacing cars, etc). To be clear, I personally think their deployment was probably unwise, and that politics played a large role. However, Portland's mayor has consistently refused to crack down on whatever label you want to put on the violent protesters wearing black. That adds significant complexity to the situation.
NPR was the most neutral of any major news organization up until the past 2-3 years, when they've undergone major changes and now put out mostly ideologically-driven pieces like other outlets on the left.
I do give credit to many local media outlets, who are often the only ones asking the hard questions, like this local outlet in Portland:
> "NPR was the most neutral of any major news organization up until the past 2-3 years, when they've undergone major changes and now put out mostly ideologically-driven pieces like other outlets on the left."
it's been more like 5 years, at least since the snafu of the last presidential election. but even as i criticize npr, i expect them to change for the better, being "public" and certain shows/hosts providing valuable news without spin (at least not much intolerable spin).
certain hosts/shows on the other hand are basically unlistenable, like michael barbaro on nyt's the daily, with all of its melodramatic, self-righteous cynicism designed for the superiority-complex set. it's disgusting pandering.
The story was posted after they were charged, and it doesn't seem like they retracted or apologized for a libelous allegation against victims, no less.
Sadly, I think that the expectation that news is "free" has driven far more of this (across the board). It's particularly evident in previously "staid but solid" news orgs as they cut costs to survive. I don't know if there's a practical solution at the news-production end. At the news-consumption end, I guess the "grain of salt" is needed more than ever. But I would hesitate to read malice (i.e. an explicit intention to misrepresent) into most news orgs (for most of their news. Clearly owners have interests that may become apparent with the way they cover some news). The intersection of cost-cutting, and "knowing" and playing to your audience leads to lots of this sort of thing.
I think your comment about mainstream media is mostly unfair, as the same accusations can be made against most non-mainstream media. I'd also suggest that NPR are one of the better mainstream media orgs, but that's just my opinion. The parent poster made one case for why - they are willing to host their own critics. Not too many news orgs are willing to do that.