In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

kathybgc Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 10:16 AM
I've already implemented that approach. I cancelled a liberal newspaper. Also made a list of Actors (Streep, Hanks, Baldwin, Pitt, Jolie etc) whose movies I won't see. Same for left leaning producers. Same for musicians (Srpringsteen, Strisand). Next, catalogue companies whose top officers/managment supports liberal causes. I'm not going to support their liberal causes. Boggles my mind that actors earning obscene amounts of money protested the 1%. Obismal protested Romney's wealth while attending $76,000 a couple fund raisers.
kathybgc Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 9:15 AM
You're absolutely right!!! She is the best. My lack of support won't have any affect. It will be my loss. But, it's the price I'll pay so my dollars do not support their liberal causes. I'll just have to read a book.
rwright Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 2:47 AM
You are going to miss some great movies. Meryl Streep is incomparable. You won't get enough support to affect her in any way--you will be the loser.

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...