Part 1
1. I tend to have a bias against Religious groups. I feel that this bias would make it very hard to cover stories about church groups, religious affairs, or anything that has to do with religion in any form. 2. I think that if I was asked to do a story about a religious affair, that I would go ahead and do the story. I would have to be extremely careful with what I wrote and would have many people read it to make sure that there is no bias in it before submitting it. I think that a job is a job and you do what you have to, even if it means doing something that you don't necessarily like.
3. I don't actually read or watch much media, but the few that I do read or watch seem to not be as baised as people think. I think that it is possible for there to be a story that doesn't include the authors personal view. I guess that journalists could just make sure that they are doing everything they can to leave out their personal opinions.
Part 2
1. I feel that this story was not covered fairly because it seems very one-sided. I think that the author of this article is obviously against Blagojevich and made no attempt to hide that fact.
2. I would have to take into account the fact that journalists are supposed to minimize harm, I feel that this was not done in this story because if a person who was completely detached from this story read that article, they would think that Blagojevich was a comedian rather than a political figure. I don't feel, however, that there is any potential for libel in this story. The author quoted Blagojevich correctly and didn't say anything that isn't standard knowledge.
3. If I were writing this story, I think that I would have focused more on the meat of what Blagojevich said, instead of making him look like a funny guy. I feel like it might have ran this way because it is possible that this publication has more of a republican slant, or because the author has more of a republican slant and the publisher found nothing wrong with the way it was written.