Never mind of course there is an inherent bias in choosing what to publish and what not to publish.
So it's not forcing journalists to "only include the information that actually matters", it's forcing journalists to exclude tons of information that really does matter. In fact, it's worse than pointless: it's actively harmful to mislead people with these "unbiased facts", because they're not.
1 = (Not describing the content because that's not the point.)
Really, you have to do the pre-social-media trick of comparing multiple sources, adjusting for known biases, and synthesising a world view.
I've always rated the Financial Times for world news. It has a high-capital bias of course, but because its goal is to help investors make investment decisions it is incentivised to report things accurately rather than spin.
Also old media international news reporting is usually leagues better than domestic reporting. The BBC's reporting of UK politics is pretty weak, but it's international reporting is very high-quality. I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera to report on things the Qatari royal family have a stake in, but their remit is (or was) to inform said royal family accurately about world affairs.
On that note, I've seen plenty of adverts for Ground News, which supposedly lets you compare the bias of various sources for the same story. I've not tried it.
I am looking for more authentic/humane writing style. There is a lot of info to keep informed, so the way in which things are expressed is important to me. Even outside the news it's hard to find good writing.
I think sites like ground.news just make things worst. The issue is not if something is left or right. It should be whether it is correct and in which setting. They are exploiting peoples' biases to make money.
But what you're asking sounds extremely close to what I made: https://www.newsminimalist.com/
If you want fewer stories (by default it shows about 25 a day), adjust the slider to a higher significance threshold.
What is needed is a sustainable business model for quality journalism, set up in a way that is resistant to income inequality.
I'm thinking tweet-sized news stories, a few per day at most, no threads, no images, no links, nothing but 140 characters of pure text. You could even deliver them as texts or unclickable push notifications.
That format heavily discourages clickbait (because there are no clicks to be had) and forces journalists to only include the information that actually matters, with no fluff about how they were sipping hot cocoa in a nice indie restaurant in Montana when talking to the subject of the story, a 38-year-old man wearing a polo shirt.
You could run an operation like this on a shoestring budget, with one or two individuals regurgitating news stories from mainstream sources in a much denser format, minus the outrage. Many, including me, would probably be willing to subscribe.