In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

Harold15 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 4:14 AM
Not always. I've read stories that were flat out lies. When it was proven to be a lie, the media just said, "We stand by our story." Dan Rather is an example!
Charles SWVA Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 9:07 AM
Harold, story is a euphemism for lie when a Demonrat is involved.. If a Demonrat lies, it is a story, if a Repugnicant lies, it is a lie.
Bruce2142 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 8:09 AM
You're spot on with that observation, Harold15! I would also add that any DemocRAT that strays off of the plantation by making stupid remarks or takes stupid actions, the media and the party cover them up by giving them meaningless awards. Bownie Fwank and Chris Dudd's destruction of the housing market, are classic examples. When GW sounded the alarm in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble. these two morons screamed bloody murder and their libturd buddies covered them. Of course, the media also obfuscated.

It’s a common refrain from the victor: elections have consequences. The victor then goes on to claim a mandate to do A or Z. It’s par for the course. The real question is whether elections have consequences for the media. As it turns out, the answer appears to be yes.

On a whole host of issues, the mainstream media’s reporting seems to have a bit more balance, at least compared to the pre-election coverage of some of the campaign’s most important issues.

The left will dismiss this as conservative sour grapes, but ask yourself whether you saw, heard or...