In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

jimmylynn Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 3:27 AM
Dan, "...the media is comprised of individuals with their own inherent biases. And it would be naïve for any of us to think those biases do not, at times, impact journalistic decisions. " It would also be naive for the media that hires those journalists and edits the news stories to think that all viewers will accept that kind of news reporting. They have lost all credibility with me. After the election, even on stories that have merit, I will not get my news information from those liberal media outlets. I switch them off or pass them by. I would hope that their viewership drops off enough to close them all down. I will not accept my news from an organization that I know is biased.
jimmylynn Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 3:54 AM
I do realize that there will always be a level of bias in any reporters work. It is not the natural subtle occurrences of bias that I object to. It is the blatant bias that exists. Individuals and organizations using an institution that is suppose to be based upon integrity and neutrality being used in an extremely orchestrated bias. That is what I object to.

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...