How to get unbiased info???

Ok, so I just am going to rant a little bit here. While I was in high school, I really disliked American History, although I did fairly well in my classes and on the AP exam. It has only been in the last two or three years that I have developed a fond appreciation for American History, so I decided I would try to read more books about this subject in my free time. So I've been looking for history books that don't assume a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader, since I have forgotten so much.

First, I tried to read a book called The People's History of the United States. Which I found to be fairly interesting but was clearly written by a liberal author. While this did irritate me somewhat, I found it palatable mostly because I, myself, am fairly liberal. Since this was during the school year, I only had time enough to read the first chapter before I had to return it to the library. And then I decided that I should try to find something unbiased. So now that I am at home, I got Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House, which I found recommended on some website. Although I noticed that it was written by a guy from the Wall Street Journal, which is considered to be a conservative paper, and by a guy from the Federalist Society, which is a conservative and libertarian group, I thought that perhaps they would make an effort to make an unbiased book that would summarize the administrations of all the Presidents. Just looking at how they ranked the Presidents, I thought that it was unbiased. The authors made an effort to survey people on both sides of the political fence and the resulting ranking was as unbiased as possible. This made the rest of the book seem much more promising.
Well, I am sorely disappointed. In the book, each President is described in a 3 or 4 page essay and apparently each one is written by a conservative who is more interested in plugging his/her own ideology, rather than trying to accurately depict the President's administration. Here is an example of this clearly skewed writing:

On FDR who was ranked third, after George Washington and Abraham Lincoln:
"Viewed objectively, Roosevelt's performance during the Depression was not impressive. His economic measures have been compared to the economic policies of fascism..."
Written by Robert Bork. Who is Robert Bork? Well Robert Bork is an extremely conservative judge appointed by President Reagan. Read more about him here. Of course, he's not going to like FDR's policies. Gimme a break. FDR was ranked third for a reason, maybe the author should have tried to explain why. Also, its a questionable use of the word "objectively". Just because he wrote it, doesn't mean that he is.

On George H. W. Bush, who is basically chastised for being too partisan:
"What was substantively costly and frustrating about the Bush presidency was the kinder and gentler approach...to everything from economic policy to dealing with the world's most corrupt dictatorship. Pragmatism is certainly important to successful executive leadership, but painting one's vision in bold primary colors often helps a president more than the good-government [bipartisan] pastels that were the signature philosophy of Bush's leadership."
Written by Pete du Pont. Who is Pete du Pont? Pete du Pont is a Republican who was also vying for the nomination while Bush 41 was.

On Bill Clinton:
"The printed record of his doings, misdoings, and omissions is unarguably deplorable from start to finish. He believed in nothing, or perhaps one should say in anything, sime most positions received his fleeting endorsements at one time or another...
Hillary gave an ideological edge to Clinton's general fuzziness when he got to the White House. She also stuck a feminist finger in appointment pies, especially of women, sometimes with embarrassing, indeed hilarious results. Roberta Achtenberg, assistant secretary for fair housing, revealed herself as a militant lesbian who persecuted the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexuals as scoutmasters..."
Written by Paul Johnson. Who is Paul Johnson? Hmm, he's a conservative author and journalist. Oh and he's also very religious which is fine by me, but maybe that explains why he doesn't like lesbians, let alone "militant" ones. You can read more about him here. Strangely, the book only says that he wrote a book about art. I wonder why they weren't willing to divulge more. Maybe because it would completely discredit his essay?!?!

Anyway, my point here is that I can't take how people spin things, and this disappointment is not only reserved for Republicans, it's aimed at liberals too, like Michael Moore. Yes, I may be a liberal (I believe in big government, etc etc) but I want to get unbiased information, and I do not know how. What do I do? For every left-wing publication, should I read a right-wing one, and then try to deduce the truth from some combination of those? Some spinners are so clever that I don't even realize they've spun anything. Who can I trust? It seems almost impossible now to have an honest discussion about policy. Maybe it is impossible. Perhaps it is not possible to present the information in a way that is unbiased because policy, before it is implemented, is mostly theory. The Democrats (or Republicans) will say: "We think this plan might work, which is why we need your money and support for it, but we really don't know". And then if it does work, the Republicans (or Democrats) will say "oh that's because of something here that is completely unrelated". Or if it doesn't work, the Republicans (or Democrats)will say "we knew it wouldn't work all along. You should have gone with our plan". The whole thing is intellectually exhausting.

Anyway, any suggestions for how you guys get your information would be appreciated. As well as suggestions for good, unbiased books about American History. The next book I'm going to read is Genuine Article: A Historian Looks at Early America. I also found it recommended on a website, so if you know that it is biased, let me know so I don't waste time. Sheesh!