Elections Do Have Consequences…for the 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 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.”

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.

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!

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.

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

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.