So who selects which facts to include? Which sources are considered worthy of inclusion? I don't think there's an 'unbiased' ('free' of particular values) way of doing even that.
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.