Media Bias. Is there a fallacy in the statement: "Simply by saying "the least biased" you prove they are biased.

Call my cynical.

I wouldn't say the statement PROVES the media are biased, but  does suggest media bias.

But why play games? Doesn't every person with a brain know the media are grotesquely biased? No one described the media better than Hunter S. Thompson, though I won't repeat what he said here - even though it's far too kind.

I can't vouch for the website you cited, factcheck,org, or whatever it was. However, I am extremely skeptical of websites that are touted as media watchdogs.

Are you familiar with the term "controlled opposition"? There are the so-called mainstream media, which are a mouthpiece for the rich, powerful and corrupt. Then there are the so-called "alternative media," which pretend to be a mouthpiece for ordinary citizens and activists. But if you take a close look, you'll discover they're working for the same masters. In other words, they're an example of controlled opposition, just as Ralph Nader pretended to be an activist, Obama pretended to be a champion of change and Alex Jones pretends to be a conspiracy theorist.

I don't see a logical fallacy. The point is actually quite logical. The phrase "least biased" -- while more honest than the usual constructions (e.g. "fair and balanced") -- clearly admits to bias.

A fallacy only enters if the conclusion of this argument becomes: Therefore, all information from this source should be rejected as false or untrustworthy. I have encountered this second sort of argument when presenting facts that do not originate from a hard-news source. That is, my opponent will attempt to dismiss my facts because they come from an opinion column or Website. In that case, I believe we'd be talking about the genetic fallacy -- or what you called the "fallacy of origin."

For example, let's say I argued that President Biden is completely botching immigration policy as evidenced by the fact that border agents are encountering 565 unaccompanied migrant children crossing the border on average per day, on pace for the highest level in 20 years. It would be fallacious for you to counter that my facts were false because the link I sent went to a conservative publication's Website. 

I assume the larger issue here is the trend we have seen toward partisan fact-checking, an oxymoron to be sure and a real problem that has further eroded trust in media. When I earned my journalism degree in the late 90s and entered the news industry, objectivity and balance were sacred and to be "fact checked" was to be held to the highest standards of professional journalism by your own publication. Today (to the larger point being made in this argument), I would not recommend relying on a source that claims the "fact check" moniker as you will not be getting objective or balanced information.

Sadly, the only way to get the full picture these days is to read "fact checks" from both sides and then do your own research. Each side cherry-picks the facts it checks, uses clever phrasing to spin verdicts ("mostly true," "needs context") and employs various other narrative techniques to persuade the reader rather than simply inform him/her.

Perhaps the nirvana fallacy . In an ideal world, there would be zero bias. We don't live in an ideal world, so we have to use the best solution.

I know this is hard for extremists to comprehend, but facts can't be biased. They are either true or false. Very often, when people claim fact check sites are "biased" what they mean is that these sites spin a narrative along with the facts, just list the facts that go with their narrative, and ignore facts that counter their narrative. This is a fair criticism. What isn't fair, is rejecting a fact because it is from a biased fact check site. This would be the genetic fallacy . It is important to isolate the facts from the narrative.

Example:

Trump signed bill X into law on Dec 12, 2020. (fact - true or false)
Trump, the orange buffoon, signed the most racist and idiotic bill into law on Dec 12, 2020. (fact mixed with biased narrative)

This is a exaggeration for demonstration only. I know of no fact check site that would write something this biased, but you get the point.

This is kind of tricky, because I know that media bias fact check is trying to treat media bias as scientific as possible, and so they know they cant claim 0% bias as there has to be room for future possibilities of biases in the specific sources future reporting. 

So, I think it might be more accurate to say, "Simply by saying, "the least biased" you show there is always a possibility for biases in any source. And in response to that, I would say, "well yeah, that sounds totally reasonable so lets dive into the claims, and the data, and lets check it out and analyze it as objectively as possible. 

"I don’t trust any 3rd party fact checker". Now, this is an Appeal To Trust Fallacy. Just because they dont trust the source, doesn't mean a specific claim made by the source is false. Every claim has to be taken on its own merits. 

It seems they are using motivative reasoning to ignore inconvenient facts that might contradict what they want to be true.