OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Candidates Face Off in High Stakes Midterm Debates

5 sources · updated 2026-10-10
Left 100% Center 0% Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right

What happened

On Thursday, U.S. Senate candidates in Georgia, Michigan, and Maine held televised debates with about 25 days remaining until the 2026 midterm elections. In Michigan, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed faced Republican Mike Rogers. In Georgia, incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff debated Republican Rep. Mike Collins. In Maine, Democrat Graham Jackson debated Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is seeking a sixth term. The candidates discussed affordability, tariffs, energy costs, the war in Iran, and reproductive rights, and traded personal attacks on stage.
Sourcing check · No sources quoted · 4 articles

No article names a source or cites a document. It started with unnamed sources and none has been named since.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 0 of 1
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: No article does.
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 1
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 1
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 1
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 9, 04:01 UTC by New York Times, with no named source. No article has named one since.
Not counted 3
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK. Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days; Washington Examiner reported it on 2026-10-09.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning outlets had not covered the Senate debates as of publication, so their readers would miss the personal charges and pocketbook fights that left-leaning coverage placed at the center of the night. Left-leaning coverage reports Rogers tying El-Sayed to Hamas. It also reports Ossoff calling Collins a "bigot." Jackson accused Maine's Collins of profiting from the Iran war. The same recap says Rogers reversed himself on Canada tariffs. Depth varies inside left-leaning coverage, which otherwise agrees the debates happened. Affordability, abortion records, and staff-hire attacks appear in the Guardian recap. A video page from ABC News named only the Iran war and tariffs as taking center stage. What independent evidence exists for the terrorism, staff-hire, and war-profit charges made on stage?
Bottom line

The debates have no right-leaning write-up at all. Skip the Guardian and you are left with an ABC News video page.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Ossoff said Collins hired half the Third Reich and that his office was in cahoots with white supremacists official statementin The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Collins was asked on stage about his son-in-law's posts promoting white nationalist and antisemitic views individual casein The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Maine Sen. Collins said she does not regret her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh official statementin The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Collins said Maine benefited from a $50bn rural health transformation fund numberin The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets including Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Guardian, ABC News, and The Atlantic framed the forums as high-stakes contests that could decide Senate control. They reported affordability as a dominant theme, with attacks over Trump-era tariffs, gas and heating costs, and inflation. Coverage emphasized personal clashes: Ossoff accused Collins of ties to white-nationalist staff and called him a bigot; Collins called Ossoff a radical. In Michigan, Rogers tied El-Sayed to Hamas and Hezbollah and George Soros; El-Sayed accused Rogers of flip-flopping on Canada tariffs and of growing wealthy in office. In Maine, Jackson accused Collins and her husband of profiting from the Iran war, which Collins called outrageous and demanded an apology for; both were pressed on shifting abortion records. ABC highlighted the Iran war and tariffs as taking center stage.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: named candidates appeared in scheduled, on-the-record debates, and outlets quote specific exchanges that can be checked against video. Established facts include that the three debates occurred and that candidates made the quoted statements on tariffs, costs, Iran, abortion, and one another’s records. Opponent accusations—Collins’s staff and family views, El-Sayed’s alleged failure to condemn attacks, Collins profiting from war, Rogers’s wealth—remain allegations unless independently documented. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for full debate transcripts or video, candidate or party statements, polling after the forums, and any records that corroborate or refute the personal charges.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.