Biased ABC News Coverage Of ...

In my previous post I alluded to a featured ABC News story. What does the story cover? That's a good question. If you were to read the whole story, which I can't say I recommend, you'd realize it has something to do with poll results, the Foley scandal, and effects on the upcoming November elections. I honestly had to keep checking to see that the story wasn't actually an editorial, the slant and bias was so thick.

Let's start with the headline on the front page:

Democrats See Biggest Lead in Congressional Races in 20 Years

Or, to paraphrase the author, "Go Team!" Under the headline for the main story are two more stories:

Republicans Losing Steam on the Mom Vote
GOP Struggles With Korea, Foley Scandal

Oh my, things aren't looking good. If you click on the first headline, you get a different headline on the actual story:

Bush Approval Withers Under Iraq, Foley Pressure

The author apparently felt his point wasn't clear, so there's a minor headline under the main one:

A Deep Deficit for the Republicans Reflects a Beleaguered President

Then we get to the actual text of the article, which begins:

An unpopular war led by a beleaguered president has pushed the Republican Party back to a deep deficit in voter preferences. But the Mark Foley scandal, while it hasn't helped, is a distant concern, with many doubting that the Democrats would've handled it any better.

The scandal's likeliest impact is that it forces the Republicans off the anti-terrorism message that remains their best push back against the broad discontent with the war in Iraq. The scandal has erased the minor gains the Republicans showed around the 9/11 anniversary.

I'm honestly speechless. Remember this isn't an editorial, this is a news story--ostensibly about a scientific poll. Almost in one breath we have "Democrats See Biggest Lead", "Republicans Losing Steam", "GOP Struggles", "Bush Approval Withers", "Deep Deficit", "Beleaguered President", "unpopular war", "scandal", "broad discontent", and "erased the minor gains".

Author Gary Langer should be ashamed of himself. Or at least moved to the editorial department where he belongs.