Historians use historians from the past as secondary sources. They have never assumed that those sources were bias free. They don't assume the history they writ

Historians use historians from the past as secondary sources. They have never assumed that those sources were bias free. They don't assume the history they write is bias free. History is constantly being rewritten with different perspectives. This is History 101. Many people have forgotten that bias is the rule not the exception. Our institutions are built assuming bias exists and try to remove it to get desired outcomes. In our justice system: A court trial is two parties trying to present their own self interested and biased version with a judge enforcing predetermined rules. Scientific method exists in part to combat assumptions and bias. Experiments are constructed to remove bias. Papers are reviewed to remove bias. Why would the news or anything be bias free? In my mind, if you are assuming it's bias free, that's big red flag. Maybe you are just happy when your biases are confirmed and unhappy with any information that goes against your biases. Almost everyone is, after all. That's how human beings are wired and it's the duty of people who want to be more rational to constantly combat that.