I'm thinking about setting up a Reuters bias category

Of course that could get old real quick.

Any way, check this out:

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Democratic White House challenger John Kerry on Thursday proposed a sweeping national security strategy to better combat terror and repair the damage caused by President Bush's go-it-alone bullying. (Emphasis added.)

So just how many value judgments can you squeeze into one paragraph? Please note that this is a news story, not an opinion piece. This story doesn't say that these are claims Kerry made; it says that all of these things are true of Kerry and Bush. There's not even an effort at imparitiality. I'm guessing that no one at the "news agency" even understands what the problem with this paragraph is.

But here's the real kicker. After telling us how much better Kerry's policies are than Bush's, we're then told:

While Kerry vowed to set a different tone than Bush, exactly how his foreign policy would deviate remained unclear. On key issues like Iraq and Israel, they share plenty of common ground.

So, Reuters is sure Kerry's plan is better than Bush's even though they're not sure what the differences between the two plans. How does that work exactly?

What is wrong with these people?

Update: While we're at it, Wind Rider calls CNN on something similar.