Rand Paul vs The Media

Rand Paul has often had issues with the media. Whether it be from him hushing an woman interviewer or speaking his mind. Although in one case from September, the media had two very different ideas on Rand Paul.
A Fox News article, a long time conservative news organization, defends Paul from a "Washington Post hatchet piece." Fox News continues to defend Paul by stating that Paul never changed his viewpoints on ISIS. Fox News Proceeds to applaud Paul for sticking to his guns and knowing not to support even the early stages of ISIS. This article is more of a defense for conservatives against the liberal media, even going as far to say that the liberals are scared by the new conservative wave. An ironic part of this article is the line, "To my conservative friends, who believe every badly written story, even about their own allies, please think twice and proceed with caution." This article is clearly bias towards conservatives, and the writer just said to think twice about articles written just like this. While this article has little information on Paul, it still is showing a very different side of the media who is defending Paul as opposed to attacking him.
The so called "Washington Post hatchet piece" was an in depth piece trying to show how Paul flip-flops on almost all of his policies. This article goes straight at Paul using his own quotes from different times and articles he has posted. A lot of the information presented seems to have a lot of solid support, but there are a lot of questions that are never answered. With the quotes from interviews and from his advisers, we have no idea how the question was asked, you really wouldn't expect and adviser for a serious presidential candidate to trash talk the candidate to a news organization. If this was the only article people read on Rand Paul, they would  clearly come to the conclusion the Washington Post wants you to. And this is unfair, this article is clearly bias just from the wording. They start off by immediately calling Rand Paul a "fence rider" which is not a nice political term. The writer clearly has a bias to Rand Paul and uses this article to attack him.
Every politician has a tendency to change ideas when given more information, so this article doesn't prove Paul is anything other than a politician.