I would define bias as more that not using objective standards when covering a candidate.
Bias is also there in the application of more rigorous standards to one candidate than the other. (for example, using follow-up questions more on one candidate than the other). As well it's there in the selection of material that's presented plus the time alloted to each candidate.
two example from recent news: (neither American, btw just to show that I'm as critical of other media, too
)
1. Tom Clark, who's US bureau chief for CTV- News (a major Canadian network_ reporting on the CTV news channel about the US VP debate was critical of Palin but did not mention any of the factual errors that Biden made during the debate.
2. I was watching last night's BBC news. They had an item on the latest US election poll. Then they cut to a clip of Obama on stage making a speech - the clip was long enough for him to present a list of what he stands for and also to criticise McCain. In the interest of balanced reporting, what I would then have expected a similar clip of McCain. But there was nothing, only one simple sentence that McCain was campaigning.
I'm going to repeat here what I've said before - I'm not a conservative. Palin has some beliefs and views that I don't.
But I've been dismayed by the bias shown in this election by both the MSM and by websites like Salon, Slate, The Huffington Post, etc. This goes beyond editorial and journalist's columns. It's there in the selection of material for news reports, in the narrative used to cover political events, the amount of time/space given to candidates, the headlines used, the visuals, etc.
Ann, I apologise for thinking you were quoting the NY Times rather than the Post. But yes, I'm aware that the Times have a few conservative writers - that was the point of my , I admit snarky, comment about Dowd
)
Thanks for clarifying what you meant Alcyone.
c.
