So long as you avoid the opinion articles like the plague, WSJ is my personal pick for closest-to-neutral. Their event coverage tends to be more neutral than NYT and WaPo (or the guardian, but i can't remember why I didn't look at BBC). Supplement WSJ with al jazeera for an alternate viewpoint on international events.
I was told once that the WSJ has the best reporting because it's the newspaper of Wall Street and other powerful businessmen: they're going to demand accuracy and neutrality because their understanding of the market (and thus their livelihoods) depend on it. Other groups have less actual need for facts, so are more likely to be satisfied with fewer of them (e.g. politically biased coverage).
This seems like an incredibly optimistic perspective on Wall Street. Is there any basis for thinking that Wall Street success correlates to fact availability?
I once heard the same about the FT and tried it. In general, it was a pleasant experience and they not only covered topics in a neutral way but also allowed commentaries from different viewpoints. However, I didn't extend my subscription, because I didn't use it on a daily basis. Pay per article would have fitted me much better.
