Patterico gets two -- count'em, two -- links today.

First, there's an excellent analysis of how word choice colors an "objective" "news" article:

You see, whenever one candidate criticizes another, there are two ways to characterize what's happening. If you think the criticism may be valid, you will refer to the criticism passively, and discuss the "mounting criticism" of the candidate being criticized. But if you don't like the criticism, then you will refer to the criticism as an "attack." You will consistently phrase the description of the criticism in the active voice, as in: "Cheney attacked Kerry over the issue of . . ." Rather than saying that the parties voicing the criticism have "pointed out" their opponent's misstatements, you will say they "seized on" those misstatements.

The whole post includes plenty of examples, so you'll want to read it all.

Then there's a more specific critique of how the LA Times covered the Bush AWOL story.

Get to it.