I'm not from the US either, but I see much vitriol against their current president and his policies. And not a single article in support.

When one side says it's raining and the other side says it's sunny, it's not the journalist's job to represent both sides. It's their job to look out the window.

Agreed.

And when I look at the issues being discussed, I do not see something so clear as rainy or sunny. I see one side of contentious issues - issues with good arguements for both sides.

Your window might be fogged up.

You might consider dispensing with the analogy and tell me in clear language. I don't know exactly what your objection is.

Bias has nothing to do with which "side" is discussed more. Bias has everything to do with whether the discussion reflects the truth. Was the weather analogy not clear enough?

Alice says it's raining. Bob says it's sunny. It's raining. The news says that it's raining. Is it bias? Should the news say that it might be raining or sunny?

So is the sunny argument recognising that there are large numbers of illegal immigrants in the US and violent US citizens that benefit from their exploitation protecting them?

Or is the sunny argument recognising that murdering protesters instead of detaining them is not good policy?