because they have received their content from decades of already biased human knowledge, and because achieving unblemished neutrality is in many cases probably unattainable.
We could train the AI to pretend to be unbiased. That's how the news media already works.
What would neutrality be? An equal representation of views from all positions, including those people consider "extreme"? A representation that focuses on centrism, to which many are opposed? Or a conservative's idea of neutrality where there's "normal" and there's "political" and normal just happens to be conservative? Even picking an interpretation of "neutral" is a political choice which will be opposed by someone somewhere, so they could claim you're not being neutral towards them. I don't know that we even have a very clear idea of what "unbiased" would be. This is not to deny that there are some ways of presenting information that are obviously biased and others that are less so. But this expectation that we can find a position or a presentation that is simply unbiased may not even make much sense.
I was being sarcastic. My opinion is that it is impossible for a journalist to be unbiased. And it' ridiculous to expect them to pretend anyway. I think news media would benefit from prioritizing honesty over "objectivity", because when journalists pretend to be objective, the lie is transparent and undermines their credibility.
Yes, I agree that journalism can't be unbiased and that honesty and integrity would go a long way. it would also be nice if journalists actually tried to help people understand complex issues rather than just reporting in the shallowest possible way to get a knee-jerk reaction from the audience.
A lot of journalists, at least historically, wanted to do this. Unfortunately they've been more and more kneecapped over time by news companies either pushing for a bias, or for clicks.