Skip to comments.Elections Do Have Consequences…for the Media
Posted on 11/26/2012 6:17:21 PM PST by Kaslin
Its a common refrain from the victor: elections have consequences. The victor then goes on to claim a mandate to do A or Z. Its 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 medias reporting seems to have a bit more balance, at least compared to the pre-election coverage of some of the campaigns 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 Obamas 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 theyre not insignificant. On MSNBC, the Washington Posts 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 Obamacares $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 Obamacares 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, youre 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 Crowleys 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 medias collective tone has shifted. The shift may be slight, but its 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 Obamas 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.
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.
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.
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.
I unsubscribed from the newspaper and stopped watching broadcast/cable news November 3rd, 2008.
I get all my news from FR !
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.
Oh... NOW they want their credibility back.
The leftist journOlisters can all drop dead and I wouldn’t shed a tear. I might even fire off some fireworks.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Yes, nor will we forget Candy Crowley doing “real time fact checking” on Benghazi for Obama during the debates. What a crock.
*putting lies to paper.*
Same here. And let me thank all the freepers who volunteer to do the dirty work.
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.
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.
When half your potential customers are rooting for you to die, that is not a good business model.
As others debate whether the media is responsible for President Obamas 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.