1. Personally, I have a few characteristics that could make me biased to a certain story. I am Jewish, which is definitely something I think a lot about when I read a religious based story. Also, my political views tend to be liberal, which acts as another bias.
2. If I had to do a story about an issue that I'm connected to, I would absolutely do it. First of all, I like the idea of being challenged. If I had to do a story unbiased, I think it would be a fun way to challenge myself. Also, I like to think of myself as a reasonable, pragmatic person. So, when I think about my biases, I think that they would definitely not show up in a story.
3. I think the media is biased. Although I don't think each story is biased, I think that the personal beliefs of CEOs, producers, and publishers certainly find their way into stories. To make sure that there is no bias in a story, the journalist must find reasons to accept and dispute each side of a story, even if there are multiple angles.
Part 2
1. I think this story was covered about as fairly as it could have been. Considering the media hoops that Blagojevich has been jumping through since his removal from office, it is hard to make a story about him seem completely unbiased. Actions speak louder than words and with Blagojevich's actions, the public doesn't need a newspaper to tell them what's wrong with him.
2. I think there is certainly potential for libel being considered in this story. Any information that isn't completely true would definitely be looked at as possible libel. Considering that Blagojevich is under scrutiny for corruption, any slightly misleading number or opinion could be construed as libelous.
3. I would have done this story the same way that this person did. For all the attention that Blagojevich has brought upon himself, this article can't really relate to anything that has already happened. The Tribune was really just looking for an interesting story, and almost anything about Blagojevich right now can be considered an interesting story.