Ya got me
I know it's a lot of fun to pull my chain. You can't be this damn thick.
And you couldn't possibly be this much the dogmatic blowhard. We make quite a team, don't we?
But back to business...Without tangible measures like use of "Republican culture of corruption" or patterns of party identification, things seem to have devolved to "I know it when I see it". To you it was "glaringly obvious" that the NYT was biased because they mentioned the three Republican bigshots in trouble, but perhaps that's because the mention of Republican problems triggered a negative emotional reaction in you that projected on to the NYT. They made you feel bad, not to put too fine a point on it. But how, in an article about yet another politician caught in a compromising position, can they not put it in context by mentioning other politicians in trouble? Try to look at it this way: If they hadn't mentioned the three Republicans, a Leftie would see bias in "covering up" that fact. At a minimum, a Democrat would feel that the fact of similar Republican problems deserves equal time as a matter of fairness. There are other definitions of "fair and balanced" than Fox's.