This might be beating a dead horse, but it is quite impossible to have "no bias" when it comes to political issues. Okay, you can interview the "different sides" to the issue, but generally speaking there are many different views from a wide variety of sources, and you can't spend all day interviewing people who think the recession was caused by space aliens with mind control ray guns. So you weed out certain views, but some may very well be valid but lacking in public support or extreme. If the Marxist Leninist Party wants to have a say, not giving them that say is biased but so is including the Marxist Leninist Party opinion on every issue that comes up.
Now you can just report facts, but which facts? Politically charged debates often have a variety of statistics involved that can support multiple views, and which are often more complicated than seen at first glance. If you're talking about gun control, do you compare homicide rates, deaths by firearms, or homicides with firearms? How do you decide which country has "more" or "less" control when they may very well vary wildly in different respects? If you're talking about economics, what statistics do you use and in what contexts? It's all very well to report that East Borgistria experienced a GDP growth rate of 15% after a recession, but that's meaningless if most of that GDP is coming from a colossally expensive project to construct a golden statue of the president (though reporting that is tipping things the other way again).
In Britain, this is mostly solved by the BBC trying to keep its biases subtle, or at least not at odds with the major parties in the British government. In America, though, it's quite a bit more silly. If a news station tries to be unbiased in America, like CNN, they take the view that anything the two major parties disagree on is nuanced and complicated, whereas anything they agree on is set in stone and must be true. If one party insisted that the Earth revolves around the Moon and the other that the Sun revolves around the Earth, these stations would seriously echo both views as being absolutely worth consideration and may even try to "compromise" the two together. Meanwhile, if some people insisted that both parties were incorrect, they would be laughed at during the interview. Thus, you have the curious situation where most Americans from all sides of the political spectrum think positively of Snowden, and yet the American media quite overwhelmingly calls him a dirty traitor. It's rapidly becoming hard to tell the difference between "unbiased, journalistic" Western media and outfits like Pravda.