Fluffaway

This website would aggregate a modified version of common news stories. The publisher would read various news stories and separate all possible bias by removing everything but verifiable facts. The bare bones facts would be published as new stories. Weasel phrases like "some claim" would also be eliminated, as some people can be found who claim anything at all. I've linked an arbitrary story from Google News. There's a lot of fluff and weasel in almost every news story. As an example for this story the verifiable facts are:

(Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson expected to be confirmed this week after bipartisan procedural vote Monday)-->Monday here will be a bipartisan procedural vote on whether to confirm Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

(Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is expected to be confirmed as the first Black woman Supreme Court justice this week, after a bipartisan group of senators voted on Monday to advance her nomination.)-->Jackson would be the first black female Supreme Court justice.

(After the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-11, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a vote to break the deadlock and send her nomination to the floor. Every Democrat and three Republican senators -- Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- voted in support of Jackson.)-->kept as is.

You get the point. Just the actual facts from news stories would be included. Statements like this:

("Justice Jackson will bring to the Supreme Court, the highest level of skill, integrity, civility and grace," said Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the Judiciary Committee chairman, in explaining his support for her on Monday. "This committee's action today is nothing less than making history. I'm honored to be part of it.")

would also be eliminated as they are intended to bias the viewer toward one or another opinion as to the matter at hand: Someone's opinion would not be included in an article. Aggregate opinions may be. For example a percentage of Judiciary Committee chairpersons could be listed as for or against the move.

Any statement made by anyone for any purpose would be very unlikely to make the cut. They would only be published as essays describing in some detail the background, the circumstances, whether the person in question prepared the words himself based on his history of doing so, whether there was time and funding to run the statement past focus groups, how well the statement matches the general gist of what the person has been saying, and so on. One exception: full official speeches could be included as given and without commentary and complete interviews would be published when there was a clock in the background to prove nothing was omitted from question or answer.