I'm not sure I would agree those networks are unbiased. In fact I'd disagree adamantly.
Chicken on my friend!
Ignore the title of this clip, it obviously goes both ways. I just think it's funny.
Corporations and big money control/regulate the news and the government. Certain companies write stories for most news stations to broadcast and others literally write legislation and sell it to legislators everywhere (look into ALEC, I'm sure there are others). Every station except BBC/NPR/PBS is owned by some person/corporation with some sort of an agenda, usually pro-corporate-establishment.
If you watched any of the BBC's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn, your illusions about them being nonbiased should have been shattered. They did that whole, "Some say Jeremy Corbyn is racist," when they were the ones saying it. That kind of thing.
If you mean to say they are unbiased in coverage of this virus, maybe? There will undoubtably be pro-pharmaceutical (the industry pays every station millions/billions for ads, which to me are just another form of bribery... cover us the way we want and we'll buy ads from you...)
I like NPR. However, it would be silly to say they are totally unbiased. I've been disappointed in their coverage of most elections. They do have a bit more variety of opinion/originality of programming and less sensationalism than television news, in my opinion.
I'm not trying to poop on anyone's preferred source of news, I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. Looking up people unedited on youtube is a great way to get an uneditorialized view of what's happening. I can't believe I'm about to recommend Joe Rogan again, but his podcasts can be surprisingly educational. They are long form conversations, and he isn't afraid to ask stupid questions.