Mainstream pre-election coverage in America heavily favored Democratic candidates, according to an October 31 report from the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

Between September 5 and October 22, the center analyzed 167 midterm election stories carried by abc, cbs and nbc, and found that 12 percent of the press coverage between this period cast the Republicans in a positive light, while 77 percent of the press coverage was positive for Democrats.

Considering the stakes were so high in these elections, resulting in the Democrats wresting control of both the Senate and House of Representatives from Republicans, questions of fairness and balance in media come roaring back to center stage.

Consider the three stories that dominated network news before the election: First, the Mark Foley scandal aired on network television 59 times; second, stories about Iraq aired 33 times; and third, stories about terrorism and/or national security aired 31 times.

Of course, the news of the day must be reported; as cbs News wrote in response to the survey, one might claim that these three stories just happened to dominate all other world affairs at the time. The real problem, however, is how the news is covered. The tone of the network news is at issue, and also, to whom or at what the negativity is directed.

In the November 6Opinion Journal, James Q. Wilson presented his thoughts on how the media has gravitated toward an overtly downbeat perspective. He cited statistics that demonstrate the level of media pessimism toward the war in Iraq. He wrote,

Between January 1 and Sept. 30, 2005, nearly 1,400 stories appeared on the abc, cbs and nbc evening news. More than half focused on the costs and problems of the war, four times as many as those that discussed the successes. About 40 percent of the stories reported terrorist attacks; scarcely any reported the triumphs of American soldiers and Marines. The few positive stories about progress in Iraq were just a small fraction of all the broadcasts.When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts, it found that during the active war against Saddam Hussein, 51 percent of the reports about the conflict were negative. Six months after the land battle ended, 77 percent were negative; in the 2004 general election, 89 percent were negative; by the spring of 2006, 94 percent were negative. This decline in media support was much faster than during Korea or Vietnam.

That news coverage could be so one-sided and anti-American during time of war is of special significance because of its relevance to a number of end-time Bible prophecies. The media’s bias in its coverage of the war against terrorism is actually accelerating the fulfillment of prophesied events.

The media are working overtime to see that President Bush’s war against terrorism will end badly. Confronting terrorists, their new recruits and the governments that support them will now be much more difficult. Achieving public and congressional support for future battles will be next to impossible. And the liberal media are largely to blame for that. Media bias has undermined America’s justification for all future pre-emptive attacks against terrorists and their state sponsors.

The war on terrorism has revealed just how powerful and widespread anti-American forces are around the world—not just in terrorist camps and caves, but also in newsrooms within America. Together, these forces are working to accelerate the downfall of the United States.