Accuracy in Media

In its coverage of the ABC News Democratic debate, the Washington Post wrote in a breaking news alert that “The Democratic Party emerged as one of the winners,” and that “Having the front-runners together for the debate made the Democratic field look better.”

The post-debate coverage shows the perils of news reporters engaging in “analysis” rather than straight reporting.

“Given this was the first time the cream of the Democratic crop was all on the same debate stage, it took on added significance.” Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake wrote in his subsequent coverage. “And the field was better than it has been. The absence of bomb-throwers who were at 1 percent in the polls helped keep things focused. But even beyond that, the candidates including former vice president Joe Biden (though he still had his poor moments) and Kamala D. Harris (who somewhat fell apart in her closing statement) were generally sharper than they have been … Party leaders should be more encouraged by what they saw Thursday.”

Seeking to insert some balance by referring to a past debate, Blake pointed out that “I named President Trump a winner after a previous debate, given how so-so the Democrats were,” he wrote.

The problem with that small consolation is the overall perception among conservatives that the Post is more broadly slanted far to the left, with its editorial pages consistently slamming conservatives and Post employees favoring Democrats by a wide margin over Republicans when it comes to political donations. For example, Washington Post employees donated $10,103 to Hillary Clinton in 2016, according to, a website created by the Center For Responsive Politics. They made zero donations to candidate Donald Trump and a mere $200 to candidate Ben Carson. During the 2018 congressional cycle, Post employees donated $11,836 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans, according to  

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.