Well I took the liberty of contacting a retired American journalist I know to take a look at the wiki article and give me an opinion on it. We have different political outlooks but I trust him to give me a straight opinion when asked.
QUOTE
The Wikipedia entry contains vastly more information than I had ever heard about him. He still has a few acolytes who set up "information" tables in public places, where they accost people with insults in order to strike up conversations. I almost got into a fist fight with one that was parked outside of our local post office (a common location for them) just before the 2008 presidential election.
But I have no way to know how accurate the Wikipedia entry is. Considering the negative way most people view him (those of us old enough to remember who he is, from the days when he was in the news a lot -- 1980s, mostly), the tone of the Wiki seems mild. Among a younger generation, relatively few will even know who you're talking about, if you bring up his name.
The media lost interest in him decades ago. I wouldn't trust them to give unbiased reports, either, unless there was some reason to do extensive checks and analyses of his claims. But I don't recall seeing anything about him with any real reportorial depth. If I do see his name in a rare article headline, I skip over it.
Sorry I can't help you in measuring the bias in that article. LaRouche's great strength is in couching his assertions in ways that are very difficult to pick apart and evaluate. That's why he's so frustrating. But my own opinion of him is extremely negative, so I'm not a good one to judge.