I want to formulate and characterize a new "definition" of media bias as bias that exists in the viewer's mind, affected by outside influences, and the way certain news articles are presented . Such points include the "hostile media effect", "paradox of objectivity", "progaganda model", "coverage bias", refutation of a "wording bias", and the "extrapolation hypothesis".
You can talk about these topics, but in the way you explain here I don't see a new definition.
Basically, I want to redirect attention to how different individual viewers see and respond to specific news pieces (coverage of presidential campaigns, problems in the Middle East, etc), characterizing this personal bias as the truth behind media impartiality.
If you are referring to the interpretations made by viewers, it is not media bias. It's viewer interpretation. It seems like you are saying there is no media bias and that viewers perceive a bias where none exists.
Fox is known for a conservative bias, and msnbc for a liberal bias... do you disagree? This is a tough subject. I think you may be on to something, though. It is the personal feeling of each individual pundit or journalist that determines any bias, I think, and these feelings vary from person to person, even from issue to issue.
Here is my best idea: The journalist is biased in favor of whatever is sensational.
I hope that helps somehow! I don't know how to help with the outline except to say that I think you need to settle on a specific idea to argue.