I do not prefer a bias. (BTW That is different from: "I prefer things without bias")
I also do not operate out of an framework where "every story has two sides and the truth is halfway in between". For example, I consider "fair and balanced"(*) to be an epistemic oxymoron because the truth is rarely found in the middle of two opinions. I'm glad they changed their slogan.
(*) I wonder where I should have prefaced that with a trigger warning or used a different and less known slogan. This wasn't a comment on a particular news source but a comment on how I juggle/understand the concepts of reality, bias, and opinion when it comes to "news".
Classic google news was useful because it served news algorithmically based on what other people were referencing and based on what you were likely to click on (based on cookies, etc.). This is the same way that google searches work. So if the majority is referencing (linking) each other and you like that group; that's what you're getting. If they're referencing each other and you like something else, you would be getting something else but not as well as if the "google rank" of those sites were higher. In other words, classic google news didn't really serve fringe stuff because only a minority was linking to it. You could also avoid ending up in a google bubble by reading a wider assortment.
What was good about classic google news is that it would present a bunch of articles about the same issue. If you were interested in different perspectives, you could then read 5 different articles about the same issue, e.g. MSNBC, Fox, CNN, AP, and Breitbart. This exercise often reveals that writers are quite selective in what they focus on, some more than others. This approach is useful because it
1) Allows you to triangulate where the factual truth is likely to be found.
2) It also reveals the blind-spots of those who only get their news from one source---because ideological blind spots are rather consistent.
This approach using a combination of algorithmic harvesting and reading wide is quite different from a curated aggregator because it also reveals the extent of lack of knowledge relative to the various political demographics. A curator does not reveal his own blind sides.
Conversely, the new google news shows very little diversity in terms of sources presented. It's therefore harder to sample and get an idea of what the Breitbart people know about this issue; what the MSNBC crowd knows; etc. Instead, google in their IMHO misguided wisdom have decided to outsource that problem to fact checkers and put cute flag icons on contested stuff. Very similar to facebook's approach. It's designed for lazy news consumers who can't be assed to do their own analysis anymore.
http://www.memeorandum.com/ which I listed does what google classic did and actually does it better in terms of depth. It lists the top issue .. and you can then click on the + to expand and see what ALL sources say including titles. You can then sample those to get an idea of other people's biases. Unfortunately, memeorandom doesn't go wide. There's no business section, world section, or science section for example.