Well, you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that pretty much all of American MSM is highly partisan, some worse than others.
I grew up in the UK and 70s-80s BBC seemed a lot more neutral, but of course every news organization has their own implicit world view, relative to which they report the news. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, although there are those that try to brainwash you and those that at least try to keep it factual.
I've always thought about having one news agency/aggregator that are strictly opinions verboten, i.e. just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible.
Something happened here at date involving these people. Done. No opinion, no analysis, no conjectures or sarcasm, no calling people with words that either accurately describe them or inaccurately, only official titles and names.
It might just be possible when the rest of the field have clearly departed from objectivity, competition seems low enough.
Note: I'm not trying to engage in political axe-grinding here. I found the below example after about ~30 seconds of looking.
These organizations are fact-forward, but far from unbiased. It's impossible to read an article like this one[0], for example, without a clear understanding of which side of the argument the author is rooting for.
That article is pretty deceptive, actually. Like, how could they bring themselves to include this line:
> "The idea that we have a social contagion encouraging people to be trans in a climate that is this hostile to trans people in so unbelievably offensive," said Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer who has litigated against the Arkansas and Alabama laws.
...without mentioning that the number of trans kids has, in fact, been rising rapidly?![1]
Won't work, the issue isn't so much a news organization writes "you should think X about this problem" it's more how they frame information, what information they leave out, and what information they choose to amplify in order to make a certain point, to the point of misleading in many cases.
There's certain words that have subjective connotation which they also use, and it's near impossible to write anything coherent for an audience if you decide any words with subjective connotation are forbidden.
>just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible
Wouldn't work. There are too many facts and it is possible to build a narrative just by choosing which facts to show or not show.
Easy example, pick some demographic. Now report just the facts about all violent crime that demographic is involved in. Add in the most news worthy violent crimes of other demographics (the ones other news channels are carrying) to help create the image of impartial coverage, but always ensure an abundance of violent crime reports from the targeted demographic.
Thanks to the size of the total US population, you'll always have a new story to cover even without having to add in any opinion. The US, with 300,000,000+ people, will have a few new leads every single day. The disproportionate coverage, even while sticking to just facts, will be feeding a false narrative just as much as any opinionated coverage would.
Perfect cannot be the enemy of good, it's the direction that we want something to happen, doesn't mean it must be perfect, or even need to be perfect eventually.
In America it's not just partisan it's state sponsored. The American media has a history of being covert propagandists. George Edward Creel was the OG master at slipping in narratives to publications. Creel never used straight-out propaganda like the BBC would have and preferred that "news media" (on all sides of the spectrum) inject state-sponsored innuendo. That's always been how we manufacture consent in the US. At one point Creel had 80K on his payroll and to the best of my knowledge it's never properly been explained how his WWI organization was re-orged.
I grew up in the UK and 70s-80s BBC seemed a lot more neutral, but of course every news organization has their own implicit world view, relative to which they report the news. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, although there are those that try to brainwash you and those that at least try to keep it factual.