If a newspaper were to simply present the facts and let the reader come to their own conclusion, that might be viewed as dangerous.
Besides which, people think in stories, and presenting just a list of facts isn't going to be read by anyone.
The spin, speculation, and lack of sources are the other issues.
I would read a list of facts over a story. I hate fluff. Most people don't even read the story, they read the title and possibly the first/last paragaph.
I see this sentiment floating around a lot, but I think it's a bit of a naïve approach. Just by deciding which news to publish a newspaper already has a bias.
You can also do that to highlight the spin, but wouldn't it be nice if there was no spin in the first place?
The argument is that it's not possible, not that it wouldn't be desirable if it were. The way to get all of the unbiased facts not intended to illustrate a narrative is to be omnipotent. Otherwise, you're getting filtered information from someone telling you what they saw. The reason they leave out what color socks they were wearing at the time they saw it is because they're filtering the information down to what they think is relevant to their narrative.
I believe GP was more suggesting the latter than the former.
The word "fact" is very very sloppy.