"Unbiased news" - what would that even look like? As soon as you decide what to report on and what not to report on, that is a bias. If anything, this is about filtering out stories that don't fall within the consensus narrative and thus require that value judgements be made explicit and explained - what they seem to call "analysis".
I believe the idea is the "both sides" approach, where you get quotes from those who disagree on the story at hand, then uncritically present an equal amount of quotes from both sides (and there are only ever two sides to a story). And of course, you do your best to keep out any context that might suggest one side or both is full of shit.
You are being too generous. "Unbiased" means you didn't ask questions outside of the talking points predigested by the press secretary's office or PR agency that prompted something to be in the news in the first place.
Everything else is obviously driven by potentially dangerous and unfair opinion, since it hasn't been vetted for safety.
Whenever someone talks about wanting "unbiased news" my assumption is always that they're trying to used it as an excuse to justify enforcing their specific bias.
