* only facts supporting one point of view are presented
* reading the minds of the subjects of the article
* use of hyperbolic words
* use of emotional appeal
* sources are not identified
* possible holes in the argument/narrative are presented
* difficult feats like reading minds are admitted to be difficult
* possibly misleading words are hedged
* unimpassioned thought is encouraged
* sources are given (so claims can be checked or researched)
This is all compatible with being totally biased, in the point of view you actually present amid all this niceness. (Expressing fallibility is also an onerous task that will clutter up your rhetoric, but that's another matter.)
Uh, but I could be wrong.
* any facts supporting another view are by definiton biased, and should not be presented
* you have the only unbiased objective interpretation of the minds of the subjects
* you don't bias against using words just because they are hyperbolic
* something unbiased would inevitably be boring, so you need emotional appeal to make anyone care about it
* since no sources are unbiased, identifying any of them would inevitably lead to a bias