[_wc0m]

Such a thing is not possible, because news is not neutral. Specifically, the decision of what is newsworthy is not neutral. I understand that certain US papers - NYT? - are considered mostly value-free in their reporting, but from my (left wing) perspective they appear highly ideological.

I have some sympathy for UK newspaper attitudes that "we have a point of view and we're proud of it". The fact that they are all terrible rags written by the worst kind of hacks is a separate problem.

As for sibling argument that the FT have no agenda, well, the clue is in the name. It's written for upper management. The fact that such people don't need or want their news as heavily filtered as their underlings is more an expression of the requirements of capital that anything else. Upper management can't afford ideological flights of fancy when they need to keep the system running.

[growlist]

> Specifically, the decision of what is newsworthy is not neutral.

Something of a defeatist position I would say: just because perfect neutrality is not possible, doesn't mean we cannot strive towards it, and even come close.