Since Reuters is using the byline of Deanna Wrenn...as being the author...the entirety of the article is untrue other than the one line that was actually written by Deanna Wrenn.
As for the bias the readers of the article can draw their own conclusions...including you. I view the article as being biased...but it is enough that they lied about who was the author of the story. Deanna Wrenn was not the author of the story...Reuters was and they laid the story at her feet and she is the one taking the heat for the story...and is being advised to sue Reuters...which she may or may not be able to do as I do not know what the SOP is for free lancing a story.