Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media
Townhall.com ^ | November 26, 2012 | Dan Holler

Posted on 11/26/2012 6:17:21 PM PST by Kaslin

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 read any pre-election stories about infighting among Democrats? If those stories do exist, they are few and far between and did not receive the attention given to the countless Republican against Republican stories.

Granted, some of this is the natural outgrowth of a grueling Republican primary and President Obama’s role as Party Unifier-in-Chief. Although the Democrats’ party discipline was good, substantial policy differences lurked just beneath the surface. Finally, two weeks after the election, the Washington-based media notices the divisions.

Politico opined, “Republicans may be reeling from their Nov. 6 drubbing, but Democrats have their own internal issues heading into the high-stakes talks — and they’re not insignificant.” On MSNBC, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza characterized congressional Democrats as having a “fractious coalition.”

This critique of the media goes beyond political characterizations, though, and extends into the policy realm. Take the issue of Medicare. Throughout the campaign, Republicans contended Obamacare’s $716 billion in Medicare cuts would hurt seniors because doctors would stop taking Medicare patients.

Fact checkers ridiculed the claim. 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.”

Well guess what? Last week, we learned from Politico (again) that those cuts “have already begun sinking their teeth into health care providers.” The article quotes an insurance executive who explained the cuts, combined with Obamacare’s taxes, “could mean a significant reduction in benefits for seniors.”

How about those fact checks, fellas?

The questionable reporting even extended to the most important issue of the election: the economy. Endorsing President Obama for reelection, the Washington Post proclaimed the stimulus “helped restore confidence” in the economy and the stock market “reflects a recovery of the faith upon which every economy depends.” A mere three weeks later, once the election was decided, the very same Washington Post explained, “you’re not imagining it: This economic recovery has been a big disappointment...”

Even on Benghazi, there has been a subtle shift. To be fair, some in the media smelled a scandal from the outset and tried to ascertain what exactly happened on September 11, 2012. As the election neared though, that investigative fervor died down. No doubt Candy Crowley’s erroneous mid-debate “fact-check” contributed to that.

After the election, prompted by bizarre extramarital affair involving our now-former CIA director and his biographer, the media took a renewed interest in Benghazi. But not everything can be attributed to “the affair.” Liberal columnist Maureen Dowd quotes an unnamed administration official who said UN Ambassador Susan Rice “saw this as a great opportunity to go out and close the stature gap.” The official said Rice “was focused on the performance, not the content” when she appeared on five Sunday shows following the Benghazi attack.

On a series of issues, the media’s collective tone has shifted. The shift may be slight, but it’s noticeable. Would an honest conversation on the division amongst Democrats, Medicare, the economy and Benghazi have changed the outcome of the election? Maybe. Maybe not.

As others debate whether the media is responsible for President Obama’s reelection, one point is inescapable: the media is comprised of individuals with their own inherent biases. And it would be naïve for any of us to think those biases do not, at times, impact journalistic decisions.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: barackobama; benghazi; davidpetraeus; liberalmedia; mediabias; rice; stature; susanrice

1 posted on 11/26/2012 6:17:28 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No more liberal media for me ever since the election. No news watching on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, etc. and no reading of liberal columnists or liberal newspapers. If they want a socialist country they can do it without me.


2 posted on 11/26/2012 6:21:42 PM PST by From The Deer Stand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand

Why would you not add Fox to that list? They were utterly horrible. They missed EVERYTHING. Sure the others are Liberal biased but Fox has proven to be so full of it as to be useless. I wasn’t a real fan of news entertainment before but I watch and listen to none now.


3 posted on 11/26/2012 6:24:37 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand

My wife and I used to get the paper in Mobile, AL. After the election we called the paper and cancelled our subscription. They asked why we were canceling, and we said because of their liberal bias and the results of the election. They said they had had many similar cancellations.


4 posted on 11/26/2012 6:28:34 PM PST by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand

I unsubscribed from the newspaper and stopped watching broadcast/cable news November 3rd, 2008.

I get all my news from FR !


5 posted on 11/26/2012 6:29:50 PM PST by JMJJR ( Newspeak is the official language of Oceania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We all have to come to terms with the truth in that the majority of the American media is working towards a one- world socialist government rule. Control everything from birth to when they plan your death.


6 posted on 11/26/2012 6:31:43 PM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt. .Our nation's foundation is under attack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Oh... NOW they want their credibility back.


7 posted on 11/26/2012 6:39:42 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The leftist journOlisters can all drop dead and I wouldn’t shed a tear. I might even fire off some fireworks.


8 posted on 11/26/2012 6:50:07 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (bahits.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Leave us not forget the mass media pile-on of Romney when he DARED CRITICIZE that mealy-mouthed US Embassy in Egypt’s press release. Why it was instantly ridiculed and then reversed-englished to make it appear that Romney was the one not taking the Ambassador’s death seriously. To my mind that was a real demonstration of the entire MSM protecting Obama and the stench has never been so foul!


9 posted on 11/26/2012 6:52:07 PM PST by SES1066 (Government is NOT the reason for my existence but it is the road to our ruin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo; From The Deer Stand

Fox did cover Benghazi.

The cover-up by the other news outlets of this huge and most disgraceful episode in USA history was the last straw for me.

However, I am proud of Fox’s coverage. The other networks are treasonous.


10 posted on 11/26/2012 6:53:04 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (bahits.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The change in tone of the “news” papers and alphabet networks is to help build pressure on the Repubs in the House to cave to the Dems demands. Notice the stories on how the Repubs look to cave-in on the fiscal cliff, while the Dems hold fast. Looks like the Dems are willing to go over the fiscal cliff, but they get no pressure from the “media” on this.


11 posted on 11/26/2012 7:01:15 PM PST by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

I think it’s past time to go Gen. Pinnoche on known journ-o-lists....it might make the rest think twice before lies to paper.


12 posted on 11/26/2012 7:04:33 PM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

Yes, nor will we forget Candy Crowley doing “real time fact checking” on Benghazi for Obama during the debates. What a crock.


13 posted on 11/26/2012 7:06:24 PM PST by Zarro (Recall EVERYONE in Congress voting for the NDAA 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PhiloBedo

*putting lies to paper.*


14 posted on 11/26/2012 7:06:24 PM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JMJJR

Same here. And let me thank all the freepers who volunteer to do the dirty work.


15 posted on 11/26/2012 7:07:46 PM PST by Terry Mross (I haven't watched the news since the election. Someone ping me if anything big happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laserman

I did the same with the WSJ - told them that their reporters(I mean Journ O Listers) were hanging in the same bars as the NYT. Also my stock and closed account. Getting a bigger boat - getting ready for the end.


16 posted on 11/26/2012 7:18:32 PM PST by stubernx98 (cranky, but reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Consequences are the dead tree media will get a Federal bailout. Most probably in the form of an additional fee tacked on to our internet service which will be funneled back to them.


17 posted on 11/26/2012 7:55:17 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When half your potential customers are rooting for you to die, that is not a good business model.


18 posted on 11/26/2012 7:59:18 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This election was a "teachable moment" for me

The enemy is not the Democrat candidate being sheltered and bolstered by the liberal media. The caliber of democrat candidates this time were no more than wobbling bowling pins waiting to fall or be knocked down.

The enemy is the liberal media.

They phrase the political conversation, choose the candidates for both parties, set up all the "debates". Control the polling, control all the momentum, "reporting", and public opinions, and have the leading role in the final tabulations and turn out.

Any republican Candidate that does not address this real enemy as the main part of their overall campaign will never win.
19 posted on 11/26/2012 8:31:18 PM PST by John 3_19-21 (Stand for something or fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
As others debate whether the media is responsible for President Obama’s reelection, one point is inescapable: the media is comprised of individuals with their own inherent biases. And it would be naïve for any of us to think those biases do not, at times, impact journalistic decisions.
It would be nice to once again have journalism be "comprised of individuals with their own inherent biases” again. That was the way it was back in the founding era up to the Civil War. Each newspaper had its own perspective, which was important to its readership. Kind of like talk radio stations . . .
But since the advent of the telegraph and the wire service, journalism claims objectivity - a self-negating claim - and delivers only uniformity in self-serving hype.

20 posted on 11/26/2012 8:31:34 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

21 posted on 11/26/2012 8:37:36 PM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax

22 posted on 11/26/2012 8:40:47 PM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: timestax

23 posted on 11/26/2012 8:42:19 PM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: timestax

24 posted on 11/26/2012 8:44:42 PM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John 3_19-21

I wrote this a day or two ago:

I agree we need a different approach. A few thoughts:

1. Actual conservative candidates with courage and a unsurppressable fighting spirit who are willing to fight other Rs on conservative issues and any corruption.

2. Above candidates must be not only ready, willing and able but straining at the leash to attack the leftist MSM and take on election fraud.

3. State Rs need to go after election fraud with guts as someone mentioned above.

Basically no “tactic” will work other than real conservatives, with guts and fighting spirit. It’s a given that the MSM is nothing but the mouthpiece of hardcore leftists/thugs/Dems. So trying to make nice with them or cater to them is a losing tactic.

ANd I would also add that R candidates need to fearlessly articulate exactly what the Dems really mean, what their goals are, how lawless they are, and how destructive. Calling them nice names and being polite is a LOSING TACTIC!


25 posted on 11/26/2012 9:06:32 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Nice list. .

Sarah in 2008, and Newt this year early on are good examples of how you use live un-filtered events to turn the momentum against the media. Both of them got huge boosts by basically telling the fourth estate to shove it.
26 posted on 11/26/2012 9:28:08 PM PST by John 3_19-21 (Stand for something or fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Yes, elections have consequences, but they, as Stalin so wisely noted, are largely consequences determined by those who decided what to report as the results of unverifiable elections. Anyone who believes elections counted by the SEIU in secret, or which counting machines are supported by SEIU employees is being naive, and ignorant.

Our elections make audit trails impossible, and that was done with the relatively quiet complicity of senior members of both parties. Because US elections are unverifiable, their consequences should be treated as would any data collection activity where the data are unknown. Our votes are unknown. When a voter marks a ballot, but oversight of that ballot is lost because, either it is fed into an opaque machine with electro-optical reader with voter choices accumulated by an internal computer, that vote cannot be trusted - it is meaningless. When ballots are filled out - paper ballots are beginning to return as many know our elections are unverifiable - if those ballots are not counted by humans before leaving the observation of the multiparty precinct workers, they cannot be trusted. The count must be made before the ballots are handled in secret. Without that, our ballots are largely managed by Sec. of State employees, most of whom belong to the SEIU, behind closed doors.

Elections are mostly useful as propaganda tools. Reporting, for example, that 69% of US Jews voted for Obama, which is entirely unprovable, helps to discourage and divide different groups. The Christians who today are major supporters of Israel, who have many Holy sites in Israel, and know they will be destroyed if Muslims drive the Jews from Israel, are just one target. Christians wonder if these fools are worth trying to save when they appear unwilling to fight for themselves and their homeland.

When Haaratz, Israel's most liberal major newspaper, reports that about 85% of US citizens living in Israel voted for Romney, and anyone who knows a little about that community knows that many of those dual citizens living in Israel are liberal, and more secular than Jews in the US, the falseness of the reported 69% is obvious - but unprovable because we have no audit trail!.

Elections, like our Constitution, have a different role today than they did until about 30 years ago. Republicans have even accepted a federal court injunction prohibiting Republican, but not Democrat,poll watchers from being near any precinct where race could be an issue in the race. The Carter appointed who made that ruling 31 years ago returns from retirement every year to renew his order. Crony capitalists make money whether they win or lose elections, but today, it is all a charade, and both parties know it.

Pundits aren't comfortable with the unforgiving certainty of science or statistics. Criminal lawyers get a taste with the notion of chain-of-evidence, the notion that made OJ’s conviction impossible because the chain was broken. We have no chain of evidence for votes, and without it our elections are an empty tradition, but not representative of the voters they are supposed to reflect. We have, in effect, one party, and may as well all become Democrats, because they control the reported results for any election. Without paper, and local counts, we have no real elections.

27 posted on 11/26/2012 9:34:13 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let’s face it - the MSM won this election even more than Obama did. We lost - big time. We lost because the MSM beat our guys and gals across the board.

I am convinced that Obama could really go all Hitler/Chavez/Morsi and the MSM would do nothing but make excuses for him. They’d make excuses until the last NY Times reporter got sent to the gulag and then they’d be all like: wow, what happened?!?!

I don’t see how we overcome the media, I just don’t.


28 posted on 11/26/2012 10:19:49 PM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand

So true, drop Comcast they own MSNBC, it has been a breath of fresh air not having to hear liberal pundits arguing over Republicans who can’t get a word in edge wise, I love not having cable, it’s liberating!


29 posted on 11/26/2012 11:44:02 PM PST by IslamE (epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I predict they will “grill” Rice and then make her SoS. It is a joke anymore.


30 posted on 11/27/2012 2:51:54 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Cancel your cable, pull your kids out of the communist indoctrination centers, cancel newspapers...


31 posted on 11/27/2012 2:57:14 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJJR

Congrats! I did the same 12 years ago.


32 posted on 11/27/2012 3:25:31 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo; fieldmarshaldj

Fox blows chunks.

Those clowns seemed happy on election day, were they putting on a brave face?


33 posted on 11/27/2012 3:27:10 AM PST by Impy (Boehner for President - 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand
Amen. I stopped watching 5 years ago, only tune in to fox.
34 posted on 11/27/2012 4:15:07 AM PST by gakrak (“If you put the Fed Gov in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand
Amen. I stopped watching 5 years ago, only tune in to fox.
35 posted on 11/27/2012 4:15:29 AM PST by gakrak (“If you put the Fed Gov in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

agreed and good points.
I said this back in 2008, if we do not go after the media, if we do not name names and show their bias in AD’s etc, call them out on their channels on live cameras things as”why did you not mention or even asked about Libya or even ask as of yet where obama was during these attacks?”

Why are you asking me this when you can;t even ask the President what he was doing during Libya?

There are so many ways we can call out this corrupt group called the media but instead we always run to be cowardly.

If we do not call them out like we did not in 2008, 2012 and then expect another rigged corrupt election which the left will win and I guarantee even some on here will say we have to reach out etc

Sick of this crap and now the 3 stoogest of McCain are now meeting Rice and will says he is a nice woman we will consider her.

I am so sick of all of this crap, either the blue states go on their own way and leave us alone or we get women and men who have balls like Sarah, Col West, Newt etc in power and force these cowards out


36 posted on 11/27/2012 7:04:29 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson