Just Bad Journalism

From a reliable source of "divergent perspective", Le Monde: (I have selected the quotes that give the most flavor of this "perspective".)
Last evening in America promised to be an agreeable one. From the outset, one knew that the Democrats were going to have a breakthrough. But real bliss began at dawn, when the spirit of war subsided, with its procession of speculating Texas oilmen and maniacal fundamentalists...
It was all done with the admirable professionalism of American TV - not forgetting of course, the astonishing bad faith of Fox News and some others...
And without budging, they continued to relay statements from the brain-washing machine installed at the White House and Pentagon. But on this occasion they were obliged, the poor unfortunates, to reveal the names of the victorious Democrats and those of the Republicans who had fallen for their compulsive warmongering, and whose defeats were most often made possible because they had contented themselves with proclaiming their party's official line on Iraq. In not seeking a change on course - they failed to satisfy...

In order to clarify whether this classifies as propaganda it is necessary to establish a definition of propaganda and see whether this meets the qualifications of that definition. Propaganda must contain bias. This article certainly meets that qualification("they continued to relay statements from the brain-washing machine installed at the White House and Pentagon" etc.). However, bias alone does not propaganda make. Propaganda must contain an effort at persuasion. After all, the shared goal of all propaganda is to persuade. Here I think this article falls short. I do not think it attempts to change the reader's outlook by subtle means or otherwise. The author is presenting his opinions but is not demanding or subtlely suggesting that you should share his beliefs. Here, its obvious bias is also what make it a less likely candidate for propaganda. There is also no attempt made to present this story as the objective story it is not, in the expectation that the reader will accept it as purely factual. (I am assuming here that France does not have a very different standard for what counts as objective, something which I cannot prove.) It is hard to imagine that it is expected to change the reader's point of view.