[raleighm]

One limitation a site like this runs into is the fact that there's no such thing as an "impartial" view on fundamental questions of value. For example, what's the "impartial" view on whether to accept more refugees from war-torn regions? Just because a view is sandwiched between others on whatever particular spectrum chosen, or t uses dispassionate language, doesn't mean it's "impartial". It's still a view argued from values. Stated differently, for many (all?) questions there isn't a view that remains once we've filtered out all of the "biased" views. To further complicate things, one's person's "bias" is another's "commitment".

Perhaps best to refer to the default view here as "composite" rather than "impartial".

[Vivtek]

Sure, there are no impartial answers to these questions. But there can be impartial reporting on actual events taking place, and I think that's the goal here.