There are all kinds of problems with wanting 'unbiased' anything. As if values can be cleanly separated from facts in the world. (There's a lot of philosophy wr

There are all kinds of problems with wanting 'unbiased' anything. As if values can be cleanly separated from facts in the world. (There's a lot of philosophy written on these subjects.. e.g. Hilary Putnam has a lot of interesting essays exploring these topics, collected in his books) Ok, there are facts like "X is the president of the USA", I think uncontroversial. But most 'things that happened' don't fit in that category, 'news' especially. And the dividing line between which things and which don't is itself a matter of interpretation... What appears on tv/print/internet news has to be selected from 'all the things that actually happened' according to some view of what's significant, which depends on someone's values, or impression of other peoples' values etc etc. What gets to be included already is interpretation, value-laden, not to mention how its described. A list of bare uncontroversial facts would be trivia - that's what trivia is. Like in the writing of history, where the facts must be selected, interpreted etc, only a tiny fraction can be included in the writing. This element of personal values, sense of what is important, is what is called 'bias'. I don't believe it's possible or desirable to be rid of it.