Re news being facts: that was always a fallacy, maybe you just did not notice. You are longing there for a past which never existed. After all, journalists are (and always were!) just normal humans, it would be silly to expect them not to have a point of view. But you are right, there’s a value in explicit marking of what is news and what is an opinion. For instance The Guardian does that by using pale yellow coloured background for opinion pieces. I like that. At least it’s honest, even though the paper is still biased by selecting what they publish and what they ignore. But that’s OK, one can pick another paper if tehy wish so. I think it’s the best we can hope for.
But seriously, if you want an unbiased stream of news, just read Reuters, or any other press agency of your choice. Another (BTW very) useful stream of unbiased news is Wikipedia Current Events sections. See e.g., here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events
Re reader not being a psychologist: if we absolve ouselves from trying to understand and interpret the world around yourself, what should we expect? Others doing it for us will always be biased…
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.