While both appear in the Chronicle, one comes from the AP and the other from the Washington Post. Assuming that coming from the same source implies bias (I don't think it does), these didn't come from the same source! Non-issue.
 

The Chron took responsibility for both. And captioning pictures is not done by the Washington Post or AP.
 

"The Chron took responsibility for both."

And wrote neither. Surely you realize how silly you sound? It's not bias to run a relevant AP story and a relevant Washington Post story on two completely separate events and have two different styles of writing.
 

Are you saying that the Chron should just run stories by other organizations and not take responsibility? Technically, the Chron doesn't write any stories. The staffers do. Should it be immune from accusations of bias when different staffers write unbalanced stories?
 

"Are you saying that the Chron should just run stories by other organizations and not take responsibility?"

I'm saying if the AP runs are a story that's slanted or something, than its not so much a Chronicle problem as it is an industry problem, since EVERYONE uses AP. The short answer to your question is no, the Chronicle is not responsible for an AP story. And I'm also suggesting that there's nothing to take responsibility for. Two completely different stories on two completely different topics written by staff for two completely different press offices (neither of which was the Chronicle) wrote stories slightly different, one giving party identification a few paragraphs deeper in the story. If this is the best you have for left wing bias in the media, you're stretching it pretty thin.

And I should have mentioned it earlier, but the cop out that the Chronicle is responsible for "captioning pictures" is meaningless, as only one story had an image to begin with. Or wait, is that a sign of bias too?

"Should it be immune from accusations of bias when different staffers write unbalanced stories?"

If stories written by Chronicle staffers (and hence under the jurisdiction of Chronicle EDITORS) consistently treat Democrats and Republican differently, then that's a sign of bias in the newsroom. But even if this were two stories written within the Chronicle (which of course its not), you haven't shown a pattern. If Democratic scandal stories are consistently treated differently in a given newsource (as much as giving party id later counts as being treated substantially differently), then you may have a point, but since that hasn't been established, you uh, don't have a point.
 

Do you know how you show patterns? Examples. Here's an example. I don't consider it my job to prove vast left-wing bias in the newspaper industry, but I'll point it out when it occurs.

Yes, you're right, it is a problem with the newspaper industry in general.

The newspaper chooses to run stories. Its choices are its responsibility. Do you think Bush is responsible for problems caused by the people he chooses?