In October of 2002, I went after the New York Times over what I perceived to be a bias in their coverage of Robert Torricelli's surprise resignation. I noted that there had been no rush on their part to push for a replacement when the two previous Republican front-runners for the nomination to be his opponent had crashed and burned. That was the New York Times then. Times hve changes, and the New York Times has changed.
In an op-ed piece that was linked by Andrew Sullivan (although for an entirely different reason), it is clear that the Times is pushing for a credible opponent for Barack Obama in the Illinois senate campaign. Oh, it's not because they don't want Obama to win (which is almost a fait accompli at this point), but because they want Obama to win against something other than token opposition. It's not a totally unbiased piece, but I don't think Howell Raines would have run an opinion piece that argued that the GOP should be allowed to find a replacement after their nominee had been selected, regardless of the circumstances.
It's a small thing, but as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said, "God is in the details". Sometimes it's the small things that make the biggest difference.