Yes, but requires more than a day to describe a single day's events. As there are multiple parties at play and multiple perspectives on everything, even if folk

Yes, but requires more than a day to describe a single day's events. As there are multiple parties at play and multiple perspectives on everything, even if folks wanted to watch news 24 hours a day, it's simply not tenable. So you edit BY NECESSITY. You decide which stories are more newsworthy. I could report on the consistency and color of my dogs' feces at the park, and it would be part of objective reality, but my BIAS excludes those nuggets from any list of headlines I'd publish. "Objective truth exists" is a useless comment in the context of reporting the news. It can be 100% true and yet still 100% useless. It doesn't matter. That said, it's useful to examine which stories are covered, from which perspectives, and including which facts. The evaluation of semantics is a worthwhile endeavor. It's always important to keep an eye out for conflicts of interest. NPR and PBS are both really excellent sources of news and consistent at calling out their own limitations in addition to prominently reporting when they've made mistakes. You may not care for their (necessary) biases and look for news from a variety of sources other than them, but if more news orgs were like them in practices, we would be a lot better off as a country. Be honest: how often does Fox News, Newsmax, or OANN make clear, public corrections of their previous reporting on prime time air? It's not just about bias; it's about integrity. NPR's integrity frankly is unimpeachable whether you like their bias or not.