[pmarreck]

With apologies for gently calling bullshit on this, you're basically saying the following list does not exist. Or you're saying it has "center bias," which is kind of like saying a court has "bias towards its decision". Or you're saying this domain is biased, even though it seems balanced (I've looked into it), an accusation that would of course require evidence:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/

There is an objective truth. The closest you come to that, the less biased you are. Not sure what the problem with understanding this is. Values may differ, and you may be including that in your definition of "bias" (for example, WSJ may come at news from a business perspective), but I would personally NOT include values into a definition of "bias" because that then makes "bias" conveniently impossible to define objectively!

[PaulDavisThe1st]

>There is an objective truth

When it comes to the issues that "news" covers for the most part, this is highly debatable (and debated) claim.

There are facts that you can state, but even then, there is the choice about which ones to mention and which ones to leave out. Or even which ones to state first.

[pmarreck]

With your example you can still be misrepresenting the truth, which is essentially deception aka “lying”

[PaulDavisThe1st]

If there's more than 1 fact, there has to be an order to presenting them. If that's lying, how can there be truth?

[pmarreck]

Oh please. It would be in degrees. You can minimize those degrees. Or you can maximize them to the highest level that the intelligence of readers can tolerate. Which seems to be exactly what is occurring in the media today.