PressEthic

As I was glued to the news stations on Tuesday night watching election coverage, I detected some liberal bias showing through from many of the stations reporting the results. I wasn't watching Fox News, obviously.

As the tables turned in favor of the Democrats in the Senate races, news anchors seemed gleeful and began goading the win over Republicans. The House victory, although monumental, was expected and the real question became whether Democrats would take control of both House and Senate, giving them much more power to take control of the country.

Just a few examples of liberal bias, at least in my view:

CNN transcript from coverage on Election Night:

"WOLF BLITZER: They're thrilled, I'm sure, Dana, that the Democrats will be the majority in the House.

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thrilled, for sure. And we are waiting to hear from the person who they have said many times already here this evening will be the first female speaker of the House. They believe that is Nancy Pelosi. And what she will say here, Wolf, will be very important in terms of setting the tone."

This is followed by interviews with Howard Dean, Senator Obama, Senator Menendez, and James Carville (a Democratic strategist) - all Democrats excited about the election results.

Next interview:

"J.C. WATTS, FMR. CONGRESSMAN: This is about as tight as it gets. And I, too, want to add to James' comments on Harold Ford. Regardless of what party you're in, Harold did a great job, and I think made everybody that's ever run for public office, made us pretty proud."

BEGALA: The Democrats on the ground in Missouri say that two thirds of the African-American precincts in Kansas City have not yet reported. They take that as very good news for Claire McCaskill, the Democrat. They also say that St. Louis County has only reported 30 or 40 percent. Those are the urban strongholds that a Democrat has to win big in. J.C. is right. The rural precincts, rural counties largely have already reported. So the Democrats I talked to there -- Richard Martin is a campaign manager there for Claire McCaskill -- cautiously optimistic. He's not ready to call it for his candidate yet either, but they're pretty optimistic.

CARVILLE: Yes. I want to be clear with our viewers. As we're talking to these guys and they're very graciously giving us the information they have, we're not -- they're not saying they're going to win. But I have the sense in talking to the McCaskill people that they like their position. They'd rather be them than be Talent right now. That's the sense..."

Continued...

"CARVILLE: For Harold Ford, right. A hell of a race. Probably my favorite candidate the entire year. Did very well, got 48 percent. He's got an enormous future in the Democratic Party. He -- enormous, enormous future, and I think he conducted himself very, very well. But right now, it -- you know, we could lose in Missouri, but I think our people don't think that we are. And I think it's going to come down to Virginia.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What we are hearing now is that Harold Ford is on his way over here to the hall. People have been waiting to see him all night long. I can tell you, these were two very fine candidates in Tennessee who went head to head. And from what I can tell moving around the state, the people of Tennessee really agonized over this race. When you look at Harold Ford, he ran a very good race from start to finish, right down to the wire here, trying to get people first out to the polls, then to be in line when the polls closed. Then to say in line long enough to vote. So, he did not give this fight up all the way down to the wire. A lot of people saying, well, Mr. Corker may have won this race, and he ran a good race, too, but this also turned Harold Ford into a political rock star.

KING: Ed, if we had to pick one word to describe what happened to the Republicans, would it be Iraq?"

It's not liberal bias that they included these pundits talking about how great Democrats are (and don't get me wrong, they are!!) but looking through the entire transcript, which goes through hours of coverage of breaking election news, only one interview with a Republican is done, and that is the Chairman of the RNC--being interviewed along with the Chairman of the DNC. Most, if not all of the pundits are pro-Democrat, or at least talking favorably about them in this transcript. As well, when the anchors interviewed their subjects, some of the questions (see above) were very leading or sent a message to the audience about the failure of Republicans on Election day/night.

Newsbusters, a anti-liberal media bias blog, also reported that CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien mocked Tom Delay in her line of questioning. For example, she asked,

"Think Karl Rove is still a genius?"

Not exactly fair and balanced interviewing. O'Brien makes her views clear in a mocking question, because since the Republicans didn't do well in elections, obviously Karl Rove's predictions and contributions were anything but genius. Not that I disagree, but that shouldn't come from a CNN news anchor's mouth.

I don't know if any of you saw similar media bias, liberal or conservative, on election night. As I said in my previous blog on political pundits, I think it is difficult for news anchors to remain neutral when reporting, interviewing, and commenting on politics.