Well first of all there is no way that Keith does not try his hardest to eliminate any personal bias. We can all agree on that.
Secondly, bias does not always equate an inability to think of a rational argument. Given my gravatar, you might think you know all the reasons why I voted for Hill against Senna in Round 1 of CoC. But I actually took the time to explain my reasoning and why I voted for the other Hill, whom I have far less of an attachment to, in Round 2. I would have voted for half of the drivers in the CoC had they come up against Senna for the very same reasons I stated, whether they be Jenson Button or Mika Hakkinen.
I am always aware of my own biases and try to moderate them in what I say. Just because I want Hamilton to win a race, it does not stop me saying that he would need to be lucky to do so after qualifying 4th instead of making up excuses for why he’s not on pole. I’d provide an argument for how his luck could pan out. Similarly I don’t vote automatic 10s (I’ve never voted a 10, I consider them very sacred and a race has to meet all sorts of requirements) just because he wins, which is my biggest bugbear when it comes to bias, especially when people are all too ready to throw it back when people vote 9s in a race when someone else won.
The only kind of bias that annoys me is the kind that leaves no room for balance. It was Hamilton’s fault Alonso left McLaren for this, this and this reason and at no stage did Alonso ever do anything wrong (conversely, the kind of opinion that blames Alonso 100%). The rest I can live with, because people are people. As someone who supported Schumacher for 10 years, I feel I’ve earned the right to support a British driver, but his nationality isn’t the reason I’m an actual <i>fan</i> of his.
Polishboy, what article are you referring to?