The people who praise her in this article must be looking through an opaque lens. She interrupted Ryan 31 times compared to 19 times to Biden. Plus, she closed debate on issues where there was no closure. Notice on the abortion question she didn’t ask Biden any tough questions because that’s her view. Questions like Mollie Zeigler Hemmingway suggested here would have exhibited true objectivity and not tendentiousness. All this confirms that she was shilling for the Obama administration. I have no confidence with a few exceptions that the media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC) can be fair to a Republican or conservative candidates. For a balanced critique check out this article.
From the Mollie Zeigler Hemmingway article:
But how about asking him whether he could envision any limitations on abortion at all, whatsoever? How about asking him if he thinks it should be legal to kill an unborn child simply because that child is a female? How about asking him if he thinks that there is anything wrong with terminating a pregnancy because the fetus has Down syndrome?
And should a question about abortion be tied to both men’s religious views? Ryan answered that religion and science inform his views on protection of unborn life. Biden said his religion only requires him to be personally opposed to abortion and that he can’t force Muslims to also oppose abortion. But is there too much religion — and too little science — in how Raddatz framed this question? In how journalists treat opposition to abortion in general?