PressEthic

With the midterm elections over and Democrats winning back the majority in the House and Senate – pending previously scorned Joe Lieberman – the purported liberal media should be dancing in the streets. Just ask Howard Kurtz.

CNN’s "Reliable Sources" addressed this very issue, with the venerable Howard Kurtz at the helm of the ship. "Covering a thumpin'. Are journalists quietly rejoicing over the Democratic takeover of Congress they kept predicting, and will they cover Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as aggressively as they once scrutinized Newt Gingrich?" began Kurtz’s monologue.

During the course of the show, Kurtz asked CBS's Gloria Borger, ABC's Martha Raddatz, and CNN's Candy Crowley about how journalists will cover the Democratic Congress and will they be held accountable for their failures. He hinted heavy-handedly at the suggestion of a liberal media and their willingness to go easy on like-minded politicians.

When asked whether reporters were cheerleading for a revolt in the elections, Crowley said yes. But rather than reasons of bias, it was more nuanced: "You know -- I mean, you know, yes, in some ways. And here's why: because journalists love a story.

"So I don't think it's -- that gives the implication that we're rooting for something one way or the other. I think what journalists root for is a good story. You know, something that gets the adrenaline pumping. And so, you know, yes, in the sense that we want a good story, no in the sense that we want to see somebody or other brought down."

Crowley is right, election night -- like 1994 Congressional takeover by the GOP -- was a good story. The nation spoke loud, and the 2006 midterm election was a watershed moment

Kurtz was quickly forced to agree with Crowley and back away from the premise of his show, though it is absurd to think a major journalist would openly admit in a roundtable discussion that they have a liberal bias. Kurtz apparently has a poor memory; the same press hammered Bill Clinton for his sexual and ethical improprieties following his tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

But Kurtz doesn’t back away from the idea of liberal bias. In fact, he pushes it harder. "Martha Raddatz, with Democrats running both houses, is it the responsibility of journalists to now hold them accountable for producing results, or will we just enjoy the partisan fireworks if there's a lot of that between the Hill and the White House?" asked Kurtz credulously.

Of course, Raddatz said yes.

But the power of Kurtz’s line of questioning came in suggestion; he hinted rather than show. "I wondered whether journalists were going too far in sort of signaling, hinting, predicting that the Democrats were going to have this huge night, because you never know who's going to turn out. But I guess they knew something," Kurtz asked.

Almost every major poll leading up to election night had Democrats wrestling away control of the House, while the Senate looked at least to get tighter.

Maybe Kurtz feels that the journalist should ignore that data and write from a vacuum? In end, it is hard not to come away with a feeling that Howard Kurtz -- not the media -- has a bias and is acting the part of a sore loser.