In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

Rick 2811 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 10:00 AM
Watergate II will most likely be like Watergate I. The former didn't raise editorial concerns throughout America {especially during election} as illegally shipped guns to Mexico killed Americans as well as an estimated hundred or so Mexicans, so why would the latter espouse any suspicions from editorial pages of any evil doings when only a few were left unprotected in the Benghazi consulate and later killed by terrorists, or "home grown over-seas bad persons?" Silly. This isn't a regular Watergate, or Contra affair...a liberal is in' on get with it ! Big bird and conception payments are more relevant than these petty things.

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...