I have no idea what the real story is with this reporter seemingly fired by the NYTimes for saying some aspect of the Biden inagural gave her chills.

But lots of people misunderstand the slightly goofy way legacy media thinks about bias, which is that positivity is unforgivable https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1353294942060294144

The important thing, to show that you are unbiased and objective, is to criticize both parties in harsh terms.

That could come from a centrist perspective or a far-left perspective (or in theory but not in practice far-right) but the point is to be an all-around hater.

A normal person looks at a spectrum of views that runs between "in the middle" to "to the left of the Democrats" and says "hey that's pretty left-wing, surely they couldn't mind saying something nice about Biden."

But to reporter-brain there's a world of difference.

There are some good reasons for this norm related to the press' function as a watchdog — you kind of want a press corps full of haters who won't let things slide.

But it's weird, ideologically, and also obscures the fact that good things actually do happen!

The extremely negative affect of coverage of the CARES Act — which was a huge success despite real implementation problems — was another good example of this.

It's not okay to say "on the whole, this was good!" even when it was good. https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-cares-superdole-was-a-huge-success