I imagine this is the email you're referring to: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478
Some of the other Wikileaks emails have a cryptographic signature that can be verified. This one doesn't. If they cannot verify the authenticity of that email, I have no problem with them not reporting on it. The source leaking the emails to Wikileaks could have easily doctored some of them.
I think the media that were breathlessly reporting on every single bit of info that could be misconstrued in these mails were the ones that were biased. E.g. the (complete fabricated) satanic cooking rituals in the White House made it to Fox News.
> Finally, an example of bias is I am yet to see a single positive news story on Trump from NYT.
From today's front page, here's a positive story on Trump: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/aides-to-donal...
It's a move from Trump I applaud.
You have to distinguish between the opinion pages and factual reporting. As the name itself says, opinion pages are somebody's opinion. I don't have a problem with them saying that they think Trump is not fit to be president. If somebody can make the argument that he would be a good president, I'd be interested to hear it.
> ... and I never hear his side of the story.
Trump and his campaign have been refusing to comment on numerous stories. It's hard to present his side of the story when he does that.
> I actually think I'm reading the onion
You are not alone. But for me that has more to do with his actions, than any reporting. Like https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79690018395509555... and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79703472107522867... only hours apart.