But if you say that out-loud then you're "undermining democracy" or you're a Russian shill, or both. Never mind that as a reader of The Economist for more than 10 years it pained me to see how low their standard for reporting anything Trump-related went, and we're talking about a British magazine which wasn't involved directly in the US elections. They were calling Trump all sorts of names even though he hadn't spent one-day in elected office, while when they interviewed a genuine war criminal like Tony Blair about a year ago (on 3 or 4 pages) the word "criminal" never made it into their reporting, not even the more tame "liar" (which Trump was called hundreds of times, never-mind that everyone and his dog lies come election time).
Stuff like NYTimes and Washington Post were funny to read at times.
How wrong I was.
Trump baited them into a lot of free press.
PS: Bias would be something like: "Trumps 100 Billion dollar wall designed to keep immigrants from leaving!"
OR
Trump voters were misled by their "sources" and try any mental gymnastics they can to reaffirm their preconceived notions.
If it quacks like a duck...
It wasn't that long ago that all those aforementioned outlets were telling us that we'd get mushroom clouds in our cities if we didn't invade Iraq.
Out of one side of their mouth, the NYT is saying "sorry folks, we'll get back to pursuing honest coverage now", yet out of the other side they're saying "it has nothing to do with our coverage, it's all due to fake news!". The fact that they are doubling down on this bankrupt strategy in such a blatant and contradictory way is ironic, because it will only accelerate their demise.
The fact you bought Trump's blatant lie that the NYT apologized for its coverage tells me all I need to know about where you get your news and how discerning you are.
A few examples of many:
Campaign staff discussing how to blunt the successful Bernie Sanders attack that cast Clinton as the "establishment" candidate. Their strategy involved getting bloggers and columnists to "write about this from a racial justice and reproductive rights perspective, including a few people who joined us on a call to talk about the "Bernie Backlash" that was unfolding even before his remarks last night—current list is Elianne Ramos [HuffPo], Jessica Valenti [Guardian] (who is writing a column on this as we speak), Jamil Smith [MTV/Viacom], Sady Doyle [Guardian, The Atlantic], Aminatou Sow, Gabe Ortiz [WaPo, Univision], and others". /podesta-emails/emailid/56243
Lisa Lerer (AP) writing an article about Clinton's "Wall Street problem" is asking campaign staff how she should characterize her article: "she is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way." /podesta-emails/emailid/36373
Campaign staff for one candidate are being given the opportunity (CNN) to provide with questions to ask another candidate in an upcoming interview. /dnc-emails/emailid/27526
Mark Leibovich (NYT) allowing campaign staff to edit his article - literally picking what to include and what not to include in the article. /podesta-emails/emailid/4213
Party staff saying Kenneth Vogel (Politico) gave her his story in advance, and that if there's anything the campaign doesn't like, she can "push back". /dnc-emails/emailid/10808
And of course the infamous Donna Brazile (DNC/CNN) getting caught red handed giving debate questions in advance multiple times, and was subsequently fired from CNN.
Also worth mentioning remembering they were pulling the same tricks and more on Bernie. The head of DNC was fired because of emails that showed the supposed neutral DNC was in fact fully against Bernie.
This problem is undoubtedly different than if some newspapers in one town or city publishing wrong information; then it was contained to a geographic area, but that's no longer the case with electronic media.