> 1. Mass media brings power, the people who run that media have no incentive to even attempt to be neutral if they wanna keep it that way
That's a symptom of their abuse of power, not intrinsic to the problem of the idea of media neutrality even being possible.
> 2. Even if they wanted to present neutral viewpoints, such a thing does not exist. You never have all information – so the best you can do is go for something fact based and be very strict about the verification of these facts. And a ton of things are just not knowable at all. Staying fact based and not using emotions to steer people is a waste of your power (see point 1)
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You can present 2-3 of the main viewpoints on a matter with non-agressive or pursuasive language and that would be _far_ better than the bias we have now.
> 3. Even if there was a "neutral" viewpoint, neutral for whom? When I as an European for example watch the political discourse in the US I can't help but feel the "center" of the discourse is relatively far to the right in comparision to what a typical European would consider "neutral".
That's because there is a monoculture of thought in EU political discourse, and active supression of dissident views. It's against your interest to support this. Millions of people in Europe are brainwashed with viewpoints they parrot but never question.
> If you roll out universal persona that talks to everybody, the natural consequence will be that it will take on a different face depending to whom they are talking to
Why?! What an earth are you talking about?