PressEthic

The point is precisely that the Post routinely runs glowing articles about Bush administration officials, even when they're doing rather routine things that aren't very important. That's why they're seen as pro-Bush and extremely right wing Republican. All of Rupert Murdoch's media holdings are seen that way for the same reason.

But if he did receive a standing ovation and was seen "smiling before 1,500 black-tie supporters in a hotel ballroom" isn't that just factual? It's not like he's giving the speech on a random street corner; he's playing to a stacked audience that the Post identifies as "a conservative legal society." Also, it was his first public speech since the indictments were announced. There's a decent justification to cover what he said, especially if he commented (or declined to) on Libby.

I think there would be a better case for bias if the Post did not identify the Federalist Society as conservative .

Just want to clarify that Willem's comments were based on an article in the liberal-to-moderate Washington Post, not Rupert Murdoch's NY Post. Even if it were in a partisan publication, though, I wouldn't think it was biased based on David's reasoning outline above (first public appearance since indictment, reaction of conservatives toward him, etc).