It's a list of things that actually happened, without interpretation of those events.
Ok, there are facts like "X is the president of the USA", I think uncontroversial. But most 'things that happened' don't fit in that category, 'news' especially. And the dividing line between which things and which don't is itself a matter of interpretation...
What appears on tv/print/internet news has to be selected from 'all the things that actually happened' according to some view of what's significant, which depends on someone's values, or impression of other peoples' values etc etc. What gets to be included already is interpretation, value-laden, not to mention how its described. A list of bare uncontroversial facts would be trivia - that's what trivia is.
Like in the writing of history, where the facts must be selected, interpreted etc, only a tiny fraction can be included in the writing. This element of personal values, sense of what is important, is what is called 'bias'. I don't believe it's possible or desirable to be rid of it.
It would be nice if there were good tools we could use sift through the data and paint our own picture.
We would need some tools to evaluate how controversial, or how established a fact is. Are there experts that have testified to something? Are there multiple eye witnesses with sworn statements to an event.
Using example about president said X aren't good examples, I don't think - most news isn't like this. Or you will just have things the president said?
When talking about things that happened, I suggest that, apart from disputes about what actually happened, choice of verb is a matter of interpretation. And the 'terrorist/freedom fighter' question. How you see the world, how you describe what happens in it, is a function of what you believe.
Gee, the political spectrum is NYT - Fox News?!.. (They're both on the right, like your two main political parties)
simply strips out those biases - these phrases are amazing for me to read. It sounds staggeringly naïve to me. But sure, go for it. So then it sounds like you think a bias-free TV news or newspaper should be possible? Well, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Anyway. I look forward to the results, good luck with that. It reminds me of when I started writing a program which could write poetry/jokes. I quickly realized it would have to know everything about the world.[0] But still, actually trying was very valuable, gave me some vivid lessons.
[0] e.g. see in Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things the chapter about the dozens of different meanings of the word over and how they're related.
What facts to include? Well why have a limit? Record everything anybody is willing to testify to. Include all sources.
Joe testifies that X happened. Jill testifies that y happened. One or the other might be mistaken or have a heavy bias, but if the data was available we make our own judgments.
Also, we could try and stop using heavy loaded terms like terrorist / freedom fighters for example. We could try and develop neutral language.
The problem right now is that the news strives to be entertaining. Just facts without colour is very boring.
Anyway. Yeah, I don't think 'neutral language' or 'just facts' is at all possible. Even if you think you've achieved it..it will seem 'biased' to other people.
I don't think anybody is saying it will be easy. It's a big crazy idea that we would like to step toward.
Hehe ok great, I love that. Good luck! I wish you the best.