Not only that, but either reporting it or not reporting it could also be considered bias.

Could a legitimate news organisation (considering it'd be the biggest news of the day) justify not covering it, or moving their coverage to Page 56?

That's one of the biggest criticisms I see of bias in the media, is the flexing of prominence based on stories of a similar (wider) importance.

What's the bias you see in the statements "King Louis was executed" or "former king Louis executed by means of guillotine for high treason"? Both the terms "execution" and "high treason" are objective descriptions takens from the proceedings.

No? Treason is in the eye of the revolutionary judge. The trial was never a fair one, the outcome was clear from the start. And from an unfair trial and an unjust judgement you can't lawfully execute someone, you can only murder him execution-style.

To me, "executed for high treason" has the meaning that the person or organisation that killed him considered him to be guilty of high treason, and that they considered themselves to have the authority to decide to execute them, not that the paper with that headline necessarily agrees with either of those things. Similarly, a modern newspaper saying that someone "was executed by a gang for theft of their drugs" doesn't necessarily mean that they actually did take the drugs, that taking the drugs did constitute theft, or that the killing wasn't murder. So I think does count as objectively true.

Depends on the newspaper. Things that the newspaper doesn't want to judge the truth of usually get put in quotes or have attributes like "alledged" or "supposed" added. Without such limiting additions, the newspaper is assumed to embrace the written statement as true and will e.g. be liable for slander. The yellow press will care more about the catchy headline than the slander charges, so they usually avoid being precise and accept the punishment as cost of running their rag...

You are conflating reporting and editorializing. Whether the trial was fair and the execution just is an opinion, and yes, that has a bias. But whether you agree with the sentence has no bearing on whether it took place.

So no, you can't have it both ways. You can't point to objective reporting and claim it has a bias, when in reality you mean that the reporting isn't showing your preferred bias.

There are freedom fighters and terrorists. There are fair trials and star chambers. There is information and propaganda. There are governments and regimes.

Both are true, and which term you use just depends on your point of view. Both are true, but not unbiased.

There is no proper objectivity outside of the sciences. Everything in culture, society and politics depends on an everchanging inconsistent and observer-dependent frame of reference. You can be kind-of objective if all of you and your local neighbourhood agree on a common frame of reference. But you always have to be aware of the lack of global objectivity.

How about this one:

Critics agree that Mr Obama's middle name is Hussein and he is likely an islamic terrorist.

The first part is obviously true. For the second part, I am fairly certain I can find two people on 4chan who agrees with this, and they will certainly be critics of Obama.

Statements of objective truths can still be biased.

Sure, but that assumes legitimacy of the proceedings, which "was murdered" does not.

The bias is in the use of the word "King".

Deposed King Luis Executed by Revolutionary Government.

It's not hard to be objective when you put your mind to it. It's just that it doesn't pay since everyone has a spin they prefer.

Would you say that "Illegitimate Tyrant Lincoln Executed by Sympathizer of Revolutionary Government" is a fair description?

Surely you understand the political connotations of the words deposed, king, executed, revolutionary, and government. Pretty much the only thing "objective" in your description is the guy's name.

"Unbiased" means "excluding analysis". It means only parroting the verifiable statements and not adding on anything else.