In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 9:12 AM
This from the article: "Take CBS. Not only did they say, “it's not the patients who would lose money. It's the providers,” but they claimed the cuts that were used to fund Obamacare would “actually make Medicare more efficient and extend the life of the program.” One cannot help but wince at the way in which liberals live in their fantasy world. OK, CBS, "only the providers" will lose $716B in Medicare payments. Does any sentient human being truly believe that that will have no impact upon doctors' willingness to see, and to care fully for, patients on Medicare? Good God, man, one must literally have the faculties of a child to be a liberal! - Snark
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:42 AM
I just returned from my annual checkup with my primary physician. Of course Obamacare came up. He said, "I wish I had studied dentistry instead of internal medicine." Jokingly, I said, "Why not plumbing?" He said, "That would also have been a good choice." And he was dead serious.
wk2w Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:10 AM
You're absolutely correct. It's as if common sense has no place at all in today's media.

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...