I wish news sites were just bullet points of facts.

The problem is bullet points can be easily spun to give a completely different representation of the facts while still being, well, factually true. Take for example that incident a few years back where 4 black teens abducted and tied up a mentally handicapped white kid and beat him. I heard that story laid out 'factually' two different ways:

1) 4 black teenagers abducted a mentally handicapped white teenager in a MAGA hat

2) they proceeded to beat the teen while yelling 'fuck Donald trump'

Versus this representation:

1) 4 teenagers abducted a mentally handicapped teen

2) they proceeded to beat him while making frequent references to Donald Trump and also were shouting the n-word at him

Both are factually correct bullet points of the events, but they both portray a completely different set of events where in the latter you are led to believe trump supporters were engaged in a racially based hate crime.

Even facts are biased.

Edit: spacing

I don't want to read the writer's opinion

This is really up to the editor to lay down the law and set an even tone. Back when the fairness doctrine was in play any editiorialized pieces had to include the opposing viewpoints. Of course that wouldn't work now because with cable/internet nobody needs to get broadcast licenses so the FCC is mostly powerless. It's just a matter of sharing/supporting good journalism when you find it and rejecting hyperbole giving it no credence and being critical of the sources of it. Of course the stupid easily angered masses are the low hanging fruit.

https://www.reuters.com/news/world

About as close to what you want as I've found.