Don't think of "bias" as a boolean. Think of it as a real value between 0 and 1.
You can't get perfectly unbiased. (I actually think I agree - you can't.) But you can get more biased and less biased, and the difference really matters.
Was Walter Cronkite perfectly unbiased? No. But he tried. Was the result better than, say, Fox News? Yes, it was.
There was an editor of the New York Times who, recognizing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately leaned the editorial stance of the paper somewhat to the right, in order to keep the results closer to neutral. He literally had "He kept the paper straight" put on his tombstone. The results were not perfect - they never are - but they were better than the results of "bias is inevitable, so we won't bother even trying" (which quickly transforms into "bias is inevitable, so we might as well run with our biases").
Don't think of "bias" as a boolean. Think of it as a real value between 0 and 1.
You can't get perfectly unbiased. (I actually think I agree - you can't.) But you can get more biased and less biased, and the difference really matters.
Was Walter Cronkite perfectly unbiased? No. But he tried. Was the result better than, say, Fox News? Yes, it was.
There was an editor of the New York Times who, recognizing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately leaned the editorial stance of the paper somewhat to the right, in order to keep the results closer to neutral. He literally had "He kept the paper straight" put on his tombstone. The results were not perfect - they never are - but they were better than the results of "bias is inevitable, so we won't bother even trying" (which quickly transforms into "bias is inevitable, so we might as well run with our biases").