By: Diane Benjamin
Previous stories:
https://blnnews.com/2026/10/10/wglt-bias/
https://blnnews.com/2026/10/12/another-example-of-wglt-bias/
Here’s another one: https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2026-10-14/music-teacher-and-normal-firefighter-running-to-represent-mclean-county-boards-district-10?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
The AI bias analysis is below, I don’t ask AI anything other than analyze the story for bias.
5. Overall effect The piece does not attack Steinkoenig or invent facts, but the cumulative choices — greater positive credit for Beirne on data centers, more detailed airing of problems under Republican officeholders, and more favorable tonal treatment of the incumbent — produce a mild-to-moderate tilt toward Beirne.
Bias level: Mild to moderate.
It is typical of many public-radio local election profiles that favor the incumbent’s framing and institutional voice, especially when the incumbent is a Democrat. A stricter neutrality standard would have given Steinkoenig more specific policy positions and equal weight on the data-center and accountability sections.
WGLT obviously doesn’t care about bias or they would run stories through AI before printing them and fix the problems.
Note WGLT didn’t ask Beirne why he keeps raising property taxes or his vote to raise Board member salaries. They didn’t ask why a music teacher is sexualizing students either. 3 examples:
https://blnnews.com/2026/09/03/court-ruling-pride-flags-in-classrooms/
https://blnnews.com/2025/10/17/libs-of-tiktok-featured-corey-beirne-yesterday/
https://blnnews.com/2022/09/21/the-truth-about-district-10-candidate-corey-beirne/
I had hoped one WGLT reporter wrote all the biased stories. Actually, all 3 were written by different “reporters”.
Depends on the AI tool you’re using….
My overall assessment (from Co Pilot)
If I were rating it on a scale:
The article appears to make a genuine effort to present both candidates’ views. The strongest criticism would not be that it openly favors one party, but that the inclusion and prominence of problems involving Republican county officeholders may subtly influence readers’ perceptions of the Republican candidate and party. However, the article does not contain obvious editorializing, endorsements, or one-sided treatment of the candidates themselves. [wglt.org]
If you’d like, I can also do a more detailed media-bias analysis using common criteria (headline, sourcing, quote balance, issue framing, omission bias, and emotional language).
Let’s look at what Anthropic’s Claude SI says.
I read the full text of the article (Lizzie Seils, WGLT, Oct. 14, 2026). I didn’t listen to the 4:23 audio version.
**Overall verdict:** The wording isn’t loaded and the format is standard, but the article leans mildly toward the incumbent Democrat, Corey Beirne. The lean comes from which topics were chosen, whose quotes were used, who gets the last word, and who was asked for comment. It doesn’t come from the language itself.
## What’s balanced
– The headline, photo caption and introductions are neutral.
– Both candidates are quoted on every topic, and the space each gets is roughly equal.
– Steinkoenig’s farmland-protection quote runs without challenge.
– The article reports that the McLean County GOP itself called for Auditor Anderson to resign. That weakens any simple “Democrats vs. Republicans” reading of the accountability section.
## What tilts toward Beirne
1. **The accountability section only looks at Republican officials.** It’s framed around “Two Republican McLean County officials.” The overspending figures ($95K, $386K, $400K) come from the Democratic board chair, Elizabeth Johnston. Clerk Kathy Michael’s response isn’t included, and the article doesn’t say whether she was asked. The errors themselves look like real news, so covering them isn’t bias. Leaving out the accused official’s side is the weakness.
2. **Nobody looks at the Democratic majority’s record.** Democrats hold a 12–8 majority, but neither candidate is asked about the board’s own budget, the tax levy or its spending decisions.
3. **Beirne gets the last word.** He closes both the data-center and accountability sections. His closing line about not relying on “conspiracy theories” or “purely outrage” reads as an implied jab at the other side, and Steinkoenig gets no chance to answer it.
4. **Beirne gets more depth.** His committee roles are listed, and the data-center rules, which he calls a point of pride, get about six paragraphs. Steinkoenig is summed up as “limited government,” but no question explores what that means for him.
5. **The quotes chosen make Beirne look more polished.** Beirne’s quotes are crisp. Steinkoenig’s are vague: “things… kind of off,” and “I don’t know her well… I have heard stories.” His comments may simply have been less specific. Still, quote selection shapes how prepared a candidate seems, and readers can’t tell how representative these were.
6. **Side-by-side framing on data centers.** Steinkoenig’s vote would “echo what his constituents want,” while Beirne’s would follow the “county’s criteria.” Placed together, Beirne comes across as principled and Steinkoenig as following the crowd. Readers could take either view, but the arrangement steers them.
## What wasn’t asked (to either candidate)
– Property taxes and the county levy. This is the obvious question for a limited-government challenger, and the article skips it.
– Public safety, the jail and emergency services. Steinkoenig is a firefighter and Beirne sits on the Justice committee, yet neither is asked.
– What Beirne’s first term actually achieved, apart from the data-center rules.
– No tough follow-up for either candidate. Beirne isn’t pressed on why the Democratic-led board didn’t catch the clerk’s problems sooner. Steinkoenig isn’t pressed on what “the right people in place” means.
## Caveats
– Incumbents naturally have more of a record to discuss, so some imbalance in depth is normal.
– I didn’t check outside the article whether Michael was asked for comment or responded elsewhere, or how the board voted on the data-center rules. If either is true, it would change how fair the article looks on those points.
My summary: this is mild bias, mostly from what was left out, not slanted reporting. The clearest problem is one-sided sourcing on the clerk’s overspending.