“To date, House Republicans have uncovered no evidence of actual wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood, but that doesn’t mean they’re done looking for proof to justify the conclusions they’ve already drawn.“
That’s the first paragraph of the article entitled “House GOP creates new anti-Planned Parenthood panel”. Right off the bat you can get a sense of where the author stands on the issue about to be discussed, which to be fair isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But the issue is of course that you can’t really claim to have an unbiased view on the issues if your going to use this kind of dividing language. The article goes on to say that the Republican Party is trying to turn this into the “new Benghazi”, once again to be fair they are quoting an actual member of the Republican Party (although their source is from an even more progressive outlet), but it also furthers the mocking tone of the article.
As we have discussed bias isn’t necessarily about not reporting facts, but which facts you chose to report and how you do it, and in this case I think it is fairly obvious what way the author has chosen. I did appreciate the disclosure at the bottom of the page, however I have hard time believing that the author’s wife working for Planned Parenthood played “no role in this report”.