In response to:

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media

wildmann Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 3:42 PM
All the White Geezers waited in LINE in the Freekin' Weather, All Damned Day and into the Night!! To Vote the "Kenyan Kommie Lop-Eared Klown" OUT of Office!!--, And--- The Georg" Soros" 'May The/Schwartz Be With You!' "Schytle" --Vote Count Tabulation Firm-- [owned and CEO-ed by MAJOR Obama Donors] states that there were 8,ooo,ooo Less Votes This Time. than the Last[ Rigged] B/S Se=Lection!!! I've Never seen such a turn-out, and I'm 65. We are the U.S.S.A. Mushrooms. Kept in the DARK and Fed Bull Sheite! If "We the Sheeple" let this Stand-- We Deserve to be RULED-- by a No Papers Having, Falsified Life History, Phoney College Degree Claiming, Dis-barred Fake Lawyer, Mullatto-- BYOTCH!!

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...