I will be a contrarian here, since it's been in plain sight for 20+ years and everyone loves to hate it:

I think Wikipedia is about the most objective source out there. Before you jump on selective examples of bias: no, it's not perfect and IS full of BS and errors. But I would believe something they said long before believing anything in NYT or WaPo.

They make a much stronger effort to be fair and complete than any major news outlet does. I think their reviled editing process at least serves the function of asking writers, "Is this a fair summary?" most of the time. It's easy to see that the mainstream media gave up on that a long time ago.

(and yes, some of the bio pages are written by the subjects.)