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.
