For a site that claims to be unbiased, it sure does spend a lot of real estate saying that other places are more biased. Isn’t that a bias in and of itself?
First, no, if it's a fact, it's not a bias.
Second, they don't say they are unbiased in everything (e.g. in how good they thing they are etc). Just that they put out unbiased news.
Their's isn't some meta-discussion about bias in general.
They spend a lot of time arguing about using words like "historic." Well sometimes a thing is historic, and the word is appropriate. For example, North Korea has indicated that they're willing to negotiate giving up their nuclear arms. If Trump manages to strike a deal with Kim, that will be historic, and it would be accurate to describe it as such.
It would be strictly less informative to present it as bare data points without context. Here's how such an event might be reported "without bias."
President Donald Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un today. They discussed nuclear disarmament. Kim agreed to give up North Korea's nuclear arms program in exchange for a normalization of relations.
That sounds like an unimportant, bureaucratic event, barely worth reporting. In fact, it would probably be the most important thing this administration has accomplished, and everyone (even people who don't care for the current administration, such as myself) will have to recognize that this is historic and impressive. Whatever complaints I may have about him, Trump would be remembered as the man who finally solved the North Korean crisis, which many of us thought to be unsolvable. Any article which fails to place such an important event in historical context will be less informative for it.
One of the 'stories' here is a listicle of biased headlines. How is that unbiased or helpful in any way?
Obviously pointing out bias is not a bias in itself.
The idea that they can strip all bias from the news is absurd, though - if nothing else, they've clearly made editorial decisions about what to publish on at all.