That's not really possible, given that the mere omission of facts, or the placement of facts next to each other influences the conclusion.

Besides which, people think in stories, and presenting just a list of facts isn't going to be read by anyone.

That's a separate issue which should be a concern but shouldn't prevent you from wanting to correct the other issues. You can compare different outlets to see ommission of news.

The spin, speculation, and lack of sources are the other issues.

I would read a list of facts over a story. I hate fluff. Most people don't even read the story, they read the title and possibly the first/last paragaph.

I don't think this could be remotely possible. Just by deciding which facts to publish you already present an opinion.

I see this sentiment floating around a lot, but I think it's a bit of a naïve approach. Just by deciding which news to publish a newspaper already has a bias.

It would be a step in the right direction. You can always compare outlets from many sides to find omission of facts / topics.

You can also do that to highlight the spin, but wouldn't it be nice if there was no spin in the first place?

> It would be a step in the right direction.

The argument is that it's not possible, not that it wouldn't be desirable if it were. The way to get all of the unbiased facts not intended to illustrate a narrative is to be omnipotent. Otherwise, you're getting filtered information from someone telling you what they saw. The reason they leave out what color socks they were wearing at the time they saw it is because they're filtering the information down to what they think is relevant to their narrative.

Your interpretation is not possible. But the general idea of exposing facts more than speculation and slants is possible.

I believe GP was more suggesting the latter than the former.

I'm not sure if simply presenting the facts is a viable business model for most news organizations. User attention and advertisements are what they sell, not information.

Have you ever tried presenting any facts to anyone?

The word "fact" is very very sloppy.

Dangerous to people that feel threatened by a feee thinking populace, ie authoritarians.