There's another important point here. Despite her admitted antipathy for the candidate, Armao wrote a profile that drew criticizm as immoderately flattering to Harris. Susanna's criticism--which I agree with--is that Armao's allocation of news coverage is based on economic factors (fovoring highly recognizable candidates) rather than any motivation to provide politically balanced coverage.
The paper's executive editor said Armao was wrong for admitting her opinion: "It compromised our impartiality and cast questions on our ability to cover that race," she said. "As journalists, I don't believe we reveal our personal views."
As a former journalism student, let me say for the record that I believe that of course reporters can have bias but still do a fair job. And I don't think admitting that bias will neccessarily shatter credibility. The influential turn-of-the-century muckrakers made no pretence of being objective. They openly advocated reforms and questioned plutocrats, sweatshops, and trusts.
That sort of firebrand journalism has given way to the idea of balanced reporting, but often so-called "balanced" reporting is anything but. The dictum to cover two sides equally tends to elevate any two points of view to equal footing regardless of their relative merits. It's a tough call to make; of course, and I think frankly that a lot of reporters are ill-equipped to analyze the logic or factual basis of an argument, hence the reliance on spokespeople and spin doctors. And for all that, newspapers, TV stations and reporters are suspected of bias anyway.