Yes, but requires more than a day to describe a single day's events. As there are multiple parties at play and multiple perspectives on everything, even if folks wanted to watch news 24 hours a day, it's simply not tenable.

So you edit BY NECESSITY. You decide which stories are more newsworthy. I could report on the consistency and color of my dogs' feces at the park, and it would be part of objective reality, but my BIAS excludes those nuggets from any list of headlines I'd publish.

"Objective truth exists" is a useless comment in the context of reporting the news. It can be 100% true and yet still 100% useless. It doesn't matter.

That said, it's useful to examine which stories are covered, from which perspectives, and including which facts. The evaluation of semantics is a worthwhile endeavor. It's always important to keep an eye out for conflicts of interest. NPR and PBS are both really excellent sources of news and consistent at calling out their own limitations in addition to prominently reporting when they've made mistakes.

You may not care for their (necessary) biases and look for news from a variety of sources other than them, but if more news orgs were like them in practices, we would be a lot better off as a country. Be honest: how often does Fox News, Newsmax, or OANN make clear, public corrections of their previous reporting on prime time air?

It's not just about bias; it's about integrity. NPR's integrity frankly is unimpeachable whether you like their bias or not.

I agree. However I think there is nuance.

While objective truth exists nobody can know the objective truth, they can only approach it. Further, you can't approach the truth in an affirmative way, you can only approach it in a negative way.

We can know that that two ideas that can't be true at the same time means that one of them is definitely wrong.

I think this was the point of Socrates. Truth only comes from internal consistency.