Absolutely this. "I'm looking for unbiased news" is a standard line by people who do not read the news.
Or maybe you are saying, you don't want to pay for the news unless it matches your expectations -- but you DO want the rest of us to pay for it so it continues to exist?
I don't know where you are getting this notion that I want others to pay for something so then I can deem if it's worthy for me to pay for...
- minnesota public radio (my local) - economist news briefing - the journal (from WSJ) - WSJ tech news briefing - up first (NPR) - the daily (nytimes).
I would LOVE to add a more conservative one into the mix here. I'm just saying, there's a difference between people updating wikipedia vs people who have a full time job that involves covering the news, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That is worth paying for. FWIW I also pay for wikipedia. But I also pay for nytimes, washington post, and the star tribune.
Sure there are different degrees of bias, some sources are definitely biased to the point of being far to much work to see through the bias, but others reliably have decent articles amongst their less decent ones. And who’s to say that the articles I feel are decent aren’t just the ones that most alight with my biased views.
Unbiased news is not physically possible. Holding out for it is to hold out for something that is literally impossible to happen.