For the past two presidential elections, when Republicans won, it was because they “stole” the election. No one really wanted to acknowledge the more important, more obvious reality, which was that despite all the talk, the Democrats still weren’t able to get their message delivered in a clear, effective-enough way to get them enough votes so that what happened (or didn’t happen) at a handful of polling places or in one or two of the fifty states wouldn’t make any difference one way or the other.

Now, after this most recent election day, in which the Democrats took control of Congress — and where’s the White House talking about what kind of mandate that is? — it seems the blame is being placed on the media. The Red Voice, among others, points to a press release issued by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-partisan watchdog group that monitors what it calls media bias.

According to their latest review of news coverage from September 5th-October 22nd, they found that 77% of reports on Democratic candidates were “positive” while only 1 in 8 stories about Republicans were “positive.” They then complained about the amount of midterm election story coverage: four years ago, there were only 35 election-related stories in the same period. This year, there were 167 election-related stories.

Then, the key finding: the three topics receiving the most coverage going into the midterm elections: the Mark Foley Scandal, the Iraq War, and Terrorism. Mark Foley, a Republican congressman, was accused of sending inappropriate messages to pages. The Iraq War was a battle that began under the current Republican president’s watch. Terrorism has been a major political issue kept on the front burner by Republicans, particularly when they felt that it could hurt Democrats.

But here are some important questions that should be considered:

1. Is it unreasonable to expect that there would be more stories on the mid-term elections this year, if there was, in fact, more interest in the mid-term elections on the part of the voters?

2. In an election year where there was an obvious, growing dissatisfaction with the direction the current administration was taking the country, is it unreasonable to expect that more people would be interested in the election?

3. If a Republican congressman is accused of wrongdoing, must the media ignore the story until there is a Democratic congressman accused of the same wrongdoing, then report both at the same time to remain “equal?”

4. If a Democratic congressman was accused of wrongdoing, would the Republicans who are pointing to Foley coverage as an example of bias want that story held back?

The problem I have with these studies is that all we see are final counts. We don’t get to see the individual broadcasts, we don’t get to see the actual scripts, we don’t get to see the soundbites. We also must rely on this group’s interpretation of what “positive” or “negative” coverage is if we are to accept their results.

And in the Foley example, in reporting what did and didn’t happen, if the reports were factual and fair, that does not automatically mean that it must be considered a “positive” story or a “negative” one. To make sure that the story was balanced, all that would be required was to report on the allegations, report on the response of the accused, and where the investigation stands. A journalist, to be fair, doesn’t have to then twist the facts to make sure that everyone comes out smelling like a rose. That’s not remotely realistic, nor is it what the Republicans would have wanted if Foley had been a Democrat.

You can’t seriously admonish Democrats for blaming their party’s previous failures on “stolen elections” if you’re then going to turn around and blame your party’s failure on the media.

When will we stop blaming our party’s failures on everyone but the party itself? When will we stop insisting the problem is an outside force, and consider the possibility that the trouble might just be on the inside?

Those days can’t come soon enough.