In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

kathybgc Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:18 AM
You're so right!! The NY Times was once know as "The Newspaper of Record". In high school we did projects for history and they were actually a reference source. In one of our 2 local newspapers (the one of 2 I haven't cancelled yet), there was good news about Oblamer and no bad news. At the same time there was no good news about Romney and just bad news. All papers and visual media had fun with big bird (like the General's affair) rather than deal with anything substantial that could in any way harm the Annointed One. I just wish folks who voted for him could be the only ones negatively impacted. Unfortunately, we'll be flushed down the crapper with the liberal turds.

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...