I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c
BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.
Yes. Bias. Super biased, don't get me wrong. But it's not fake. It's not a lie. She says it's biblical to enforce the law, which is what they're doing and the law says to separate families. It's certainly a misleading headline, but not a lie, just biased and misleading.
Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG
Hypocrisy is not the issue here. We can find hypocrisy until the cows come home from most adult humans.
Secondly, many of those headlines are opinions or before and after a shift in events.
The first headlines about clinton's health. It went from "she looks a bit woozy but is alright" to "She left a 9/11 service early due to illness" which are very different things and deserves their own stories. It's like saying "President Regan is in top shape" March 29, 1981
and "President Regan might Die!" March 30, 1981.
The second one is in relation to The Hillary E-mail investigation. Both times. The first is when he does something Republicans disagree with. They do attack him. (since he said Hillary shouldn't face charges). The next one is when he publically said they were re-opening it due to new evidence, which turned out to be nothing.
Biased headline of an opinion article but that's opinion articles for ya.
Laci Green is a youtuber. Not exactly CNN...
The third, I lack context. One is about how a (former)whitehouse advisor to the president helps run a news site. Which is accurate: A member of the government running their own news organization is state run media. The state (a member of the state) is running a media organization.
The other lacks context. What section? In what? Is it a "I wrote this article that talks about John but I suck so I wanted to send it to him to make sure I got it all right" or what?
Also, this was after John was no longer a member of the white house staff. So I'm not sure the relevancy or the connection. I mean, John wasn't running politico (that would have been a state run media), he was just having some journalist send him what said journalist wrote.
The third one is about two different things.
The first is a scientific study stating that "fake" security methods would be noticed as not making a vote more secure. I'd have to find the paper to know what they used as real and fake security measures.
The second one is about hacking the election results digitally after they've been tallied by systems.
Fourth:
The first is a news story.
The second is an opinion piece.
Fifth:
First story: hacking the voting machines to make one candidate win. (it's hard cause its decentralized)
Second story: Hacking John Pedesta's and the DNC's e-mail accounts.
It sounds like they contradict eachother if you only read the headline.
Your examples are basically a bunch of out of context headlines.
I'd go on but it's late and I don't see the point of going through every single one.