But but but.. an unperson said it, therefore it is false and a half step from heresy.

> Why does it matter it is "biased"?

because "Biased" isn't really the term that Breitbart deserves. "liars", "frauds", "propaganda" are closer.

Are you implying that because bias exists, all news sources are equally credible?

No, but I believe you can trust those that are open about their biases. For example, The Economist is very, very open about being a pro-free trade, pro-free market, pro-individual rights organ, in the tradition of classical liberalism. When you read a piece on, say, immigration in The Economist, you can suss the truth out because of this. Like it or not, the same is probably true of Breitbart - for example, I'd take their coverage of Chicago gun violence with a grain of salt, but would probably pa attention to their coverage of the opioid crises, than the ivory tower view of the NY Times.

What scares me more is when organizations claim to be impartial, like Google, Facebook, or the Times. Claiming to be impartial is claiming to represent absolute truth.