Narrative vs. Selective bias - the analogy

Let's say I'm an author and I'm writing a novel. I choose a style of storytelling in which the narrator is "neutral", i.e. the narrator does not make judgments about or criticize the characters or scenarios in the story. For example, the book will not feature statements like:

And then Eve, with her usual unbearable manner, replied "I think you're just being ridiculous".

Instead:

And then Eve replied: "I think you're just being ridiculous".

In my book, the narrator is neutral, as the narrator is not involved in interpreting the story. Therefore it may be correctly stated that the book is written from a neutral point of view. However, me, the author, is far from neutral, as I choose to show different aspects of the characters and scenarios, but not others, that might have shown them in a different light if I chose otherwise. Thus, me, the author, is selectively biased.

-

This is a critical distinction between two completely different aspects of unbiased writing. "Narrative bias" - bias that stems from how the text is narrated, regardless of what facts are presented i.e. narrating views. And "Selective bias" - bias that naturally stems from the selection of facts - selecting views.

The current formulation of the Neutral point of view policy does not make the above distinction clear, thus leading one to believe that eliminating narrative bias (judgments about views) will make the article itself unbiased.

To put it in another way, the policy suggests a journalist is unbiased in his/her reports, just because they are not making any interpretations of the facts they (consciously) choose to present.