[jaredwiener]

"it would be in the people's best interest" -- the problem is that as we're seeing, people do not seem to agree, at least not when voting with their wallets.

And who determines what is "unbiased?" If I don't match your biases, am I biased?

[morkalork]

Seeking out experts, eye witnesses, and sources of information and reporting on them as plainly and dryly without altering the facts and given statements whether you, your sponsors, the government or audience likes or agrees with them is about as unbiased as one can hope for, no?

[jaredwiener]

Absolutely no.

Even the basic act of deciding which stories to cover can be seen as bias.

Which experts are we seeking out? What are their agendas?

Altering facts and statements is not bias, it is incorrect reporting. Anything reported as factual that is not is wrong, period, full stop.

But framing? You can frame a story any way you see fit.

And as I was trying to get to in the earlier comment, "bias" is in the eye of the beholder. What might be straight down the middle for one reader could be wildly biased to another.

[morkalork]

Ah, I understand. You're on the demonize train.

[jaredwiener]

Not demonizing. Trying to convey that this is a much more complicated subject than you seem to want to admit.

Feels like https://xkcd.com/793/