News is limited since they only have so many outlets and so many hours in the day. Limited isn't biased. They can't publish every single event that every person experiences every second of the day.
At the end of the day, they report what they think the public is interested in.
Of course limited is biased. It's one of the reasons that true objectivity is not possible.
There are always millions of things happening in the world, and as you say there is not space to print all of them. You need to select some - how you make you selection decides on the bias of your publication.
You claim the criteria is publishing what they think the public want to hear. That may often be the case; but what if Joe Editor thinks the public mainly wants to hear about Muslim immigrants raping European women? Even if every word they print is the unvarnished truth; if they're hunting around for every case they can find of someone being raped by a Muslim immigrant then they are producing a biased picture of the world.
And of course news sources don't only publish what they think people want to hear; they publish what they want people to hear (or, often, what they think their advertisers would like people to hear). There have been two big scandals here brought to light by secret recordings recently.
Scandal number one involved the chief news editor of one of our major commercial TV stations explaining to his reporters that they had to stick to the editorial line if they wanted to keep their jobs; and that the editorial line was that Syrian asylum seekers should be presented as a crisis and a threat to European values and security. His station did, indeed, focus on stories about Muslim refugees out of all proportion to their presence in society (no-one wants to come here - we get a couple of hundred asylum applications a year; most from Ukraine); and on stories that made them look bad.
Then we have another, more recent scandal. The deputy Prime Minister owns one of the largest media organisations in the country. This caused something of a brouhaha when he came to power, but he assured everyone that he was now a silent partner and would not be influencing media coverage in any way. Somebody then secretly recorded him explaining to a newspaper editor which stories about his political rivals to promote and when (this one should come out now - save this one for election etc.)
Now, you can choose to convince yourself that this only happens because we're some backwards, ex-communist backwater, but you'd clearly be wrong. The reason news sources with different ideological slants look different is because they pick their stories and how to present them differently. I fail to see how this would be controversial.