Strongly agree. Everyone has a perspective, and even exclusively presenting objective facts will still be biased due to what is included and what is excluded.

As an example of someone who handles this well, I'd recommend Layne Norton. He's a fitness/physiology/diet communicator. He has a PhD in it (which by itself doesnt prove much), but he is very careful in every video to only make supported claims, and he clearly states when he is only giving opinion.

For example, he will point that understanding a single mechanism doesnt tell you the whole story, so you need randomized, doubled blind, placebo controlled human trials (and preferably many), to really understand something.

That's something that so many influencers in that field get wrong. They'll talk about a single study that looked at the effects of a plant on a certain metabolic pathway in a petri dish, and use that to recommend people take it as a supplement. This ignores the obvious possibility that in vivo results wouldn't match in vitro, and that the pathway they discovered isnt completely overshadowed by a different pathway with the opposite effect.

He has a few biases/conflicts of interest, which are explicitly mentioned in pretty much every video: he sells supplements, he invests in a protein bar company, and his PhD research was funded by the beef and dairy industries.