There’s no bias against Ron Paul in this New York Times article.
Having a headline declaring “After Paul Falters, Backers Push Agenda in Party and Other Races” to describe how Ron Paul has been winning delegates at state conventions isn’t biased at all (emphasis added).
Describing how Ron Paul supporters are “swarming lightly guarded Republican redoubts like state party conventions in an attempt to infiltrate the top echelons of the party” are perfectly objective (emphasis added).
Calling his supporters “Paulites” isn’t prejudicial, even though Romney supporters aren’t referred to as “Romneyites” or anything equivalent.
Saying they have “stormed” and “crashed” Republican conventions “snatching up” delegates isn’t an inappropriate way to describe how they have been winning delegates by insisting that the GOP’s “top echelons” play by their own rules.
Repeating at every instance how they “seized”, “took”, and “grabbed”—as opposed to, say, “won”—delegates isn’t partial in the least bit.
Declaring that Ron Paul has had a “strategy of crashing state conventions”, that he wants to “harness the energy around him without inciting his supporters”—(“inciting” them to do what? Commit violent crimes in addition their acts of thievery after having “infiltrated” conventions?)—is surely not even slightly subjective.
