The reasons for this are plenty of course, but having to rely on advertisements for survival makes it hard to focus on facts. Instead you have to focus on sensationalist news in order to garner more views/clicks/readers in order to sell more advertisements.
Well they don't directly usually say think this and given that there is 1000x stuff happening over what you can write up on a couple of pages it has to be filtered according to some view point. I'm not sure there's a way to do it with no bias.
I have some sympathy for UK newspaper attitudes that "we have a point of view and we're proud of it". The fact that they are all terrible rags written by the worst kind of hacks is a separate problem.
As for sibling argument that the FT have no agenda, well, the clue is in the name. It's written for upper management. The fact that such people don't need or want their news as heavily filtered as their underlings is more an expression of the requirements of capital that anything else. Upper management can't afford ideological flights of fancy when they need to keep the system running.
Something of a defeatist position I would say: just because perfect neutrality is not possible, doesn't mean we cannot strive towards it, and even come close.
If I could buy a paper here in the UK that gave me a good mix of local and broad global coverage, focused on the facts rather than pushing its own agenda and stopped telling me how to think, speak and behave, I'd buy it, but that paper doesn't seem to exist.