I don't accept it as a fact that this source is less biased than some of the news sources they critique. After reading some of their analysis, I find their arti

I don't accept it as a fact that this source is less biased than some of the news sources they critique. After reading some of their analysis, I find their articles to have little context, and to be less informative than other sources. At one point they criticize a news source for directly and accurately quoting a person with first-hand knowledge of an event, because they believe the source used "biased language." This kind of language policing is flat-out ridiculous. Are news sources expected to alter quotes to make them "less biased?" They spend a lot of time arguing about using words like "historic." Well sometimes a thing is historic, and the word is appropriate. For example, North Korea has indicated that they're willing to negotiate giving up their nuclear arms. If Trump manages to strike a deal with Kim, that will be historic, and it would be accurate to describe it as such. It would be strictly less informative to present it as bare data points without context. Here's how such an event might be reported "without bias." President Donald Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un today. They discussed nuclear disarmament. Kim agreed to give up North Korea's nuclear arms program in exchange for a normalization of relations. That sounds like an unimportant, bureaucratic event, barely worth reporting. In fact, it would probably be the most important thing this administration has accomplished, and everyone (even people who don't care for the current administration, such as myself) will have to recognize that this is historic and impressive. Whatever complaints I may have about him, Trump would be remembered as the man who finally solved the North Korean crisis, which many of us thought to be unsolvable. Any article which fails to place such an important event in historical context will be less informative for it.