What media bias?

Since when does a news story start out with a declarative statement worded such as this:

Texas Republicans were guilty of a naked political power grab when they redrew congressional boundaries, the Supreme Court was told yesterday in a case that could have a major impact on elections.

That’s from the AP version “Supreme Court tackles Texas redistricting case.” The case before the Supreme Court is seeking to reverse a mid-decade redistricting that helped elect more Republicans from Texas. Based on this opening graf, it’s pretty clear how journalist Gina Holland comes down on the issue: it’s a naked power grab (although Tom DeLay and his evil acolytes may disagree). Wink, wink, we gotcha!

The Supreme Court might have a different opinion on the matter. From the WashPost version:

Opponents argued that the unusual mid-decade redistricting violated the Constitution because it was done with no purpose other than to maximize one party's advantage over another. But the justices reacted coolly to that assertion, which, if accepted by the court, would break new ground in election law.

Perhaps the worst sign for the opponents came in the hostile questioning by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose past opinions on election law issues suggest that he might be the swing voter in the case. Kennedy said it would be "very dangerous" for the court to bar mid-decade redistricting that favors one party because then there would be no way to correct a previous legislature that had "overreached" in favor of another party.

Undoubtedly, this will be followed by the AP story: “Anthony Kennedy endorses Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering plan” and “Justice Kennedy in Scalia’s pocket.”