... pay attention to the Iowa coverage.
One Rochester news station tonight didn't even bother saying who the 2nd and 3rd place Republicans were tonight after spending several minutes covering how all of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards did. Another spent several minutes airing Obama's live victory speech, but no coverage of Huckabee's. Now, watching Nightline, they interviewed Huckabee and asked him if he thought he got votes largely because of Romney's mormonism. (Why can't the media get past seeing all Republicans as bigots? It's getting old.)
Also, much talk about how a record number of attendees went to the Democratic caucuses. The same is true for Republicans though, despite the fact I'm sure you won't hear that from the mainstream media.
My prediction: there will be at least three times as much TV news time devoted to how democrats did in Iowa than how republicans did.
Update: Leave it to the New York Times to lend itself as a case study for bias... One of winning candidates "triumphs", the other winning candidate simply "rolls". One "was lifted to victory", and again, the other, simply "defeated [a] better funded [candidate]".