HOW LIBERAL BIAS IN THE PRESS AFFECTS OUR POLITICS:

Yesterday we cited the devastating exchange on abortion between Walter Mondale and Norm Coleman in their debate on Monday. Mr. Mondale first appeared to have been caught flat-footed and unaware that Mr. Coleman and his wife had lost two children. He then compounded his mistake by averring that life should be sacred but that there can be no limits on abortion. Imus in the Morning and Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume, both of which are reasonably conservative in tone, picked up on this gaffe and gave it prominence, but here's what Minnesottans would have read about it in some of their morning papers:

Coleman, Mondale debate as Ventura picks his own (BILL SALISBURY and TOM WEBB, Nov. 05, 2002, St. Paul Pioneer Press)

Mondale favors abortion rights; Coleman opposes them. But the Republican said he's willing to seek common ground with abortion-rights proponents to outlaw partial-birth abortions and require that parents be informed when their daughters seek abortions.

"But you're not finding common ground, Norm," Mondale said. "You're standing with the right-to-life crowd opposing judges who will find common ground.

"This is not a question about political compromise; this is a question of fundamental constitutional principle."

He said he would vote against confirming the appointments of judges who oppose abortion rights. "I believe in choice," he said. "The Constitution is on my side."

Coleman argued against "litmus tests on judicial appointments." He said he would judge appointees on the basis of competence, applying the same standards to Democratic as Republican nominees.

Coleman, Mondale Square Off In St. Paul (Channel 4000. The Associated Press contributed to this report, November 4, 2002)

Mondale also stated clearly that he wouldn't support a judicial candidate who opposed abortion rights for women while Coleman said senators shouldn't use a "litmus test" for judicial nominees.

Mondale says Coleman has aligned himself with a "right-wing" crowd when it comes to abortion issues and whether they should play a part in appointing judges.

And the AP story did not even mention the issue, Minnesota Senate hopefuls debate (Patrick Howe, Nov. 4, 2002, AP).

Now, I'm not saying this reflects the kind of bias whereby the press was trying to cover for what was obviously Mr. Mondale's worst moment in the debate. Rather, the bias lies in their likely failure to recognize it as such. If you are incapable of comprehending the pro-life position the exchange may not even have registered--neither the idea that someone who's lost babies would have had their views on abortion profoundly shaped by the events nor the intellectual dishonesty of saying that you value life but will under no circumstances protect it. However, even if this is just the bias of ignorance it does a disservice to your readership and ultimately to the process of learning about candidates and their positions on the issues.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 6, 2002 6:57 PM