Donald Trump seems incapable of sitting down and setting priorities for a sensible government. He seems more interested in castigating anyone who questions his priorities or gives him the least slight. He blames “the media” for his problems rather than look at his own easily distracted ego.
See a sampling readers’ view of “How the Media Handles Trump”.
Showing posts with label the media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the media. Show all posts
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Slicing and dicing clichés
One of the most used clichés used is “The Media” as if all news programs, all newspapers, and all magazines were all alike and not presenting the views of the speaker.
The use of this cliché is most strange. Those who consider themselves “conservative” complain about “the liberal media” even though they get their news through the likes of Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. Those who consider themselves “liberal” complain about “the conservative media” even though they get their news through PBS and the New York Times.
Maybe the truth is that most “media” present a wide variety of news, including what a “conservative” says and what a “liberal” says. The “media” is “biased” because some of the news includes views that the complainer disagrees with.
And maybe the complainers watch too much TV news and don’t read enough newspapers. Most papers include a variety of columnists and a large variety of opposing view in their letters columns.
If “The Media” has any bias, it is partly “laziness” and partly lack of resources. It is rare that we see on the front page “Joe Blow” came in second to a de facto “none of the above”. That is, Joe Blow received 55 percent of the 55 percent turnout, giving him a “landslide”. Huh? 55 percent of 55 percent represents a tad over 30 percent of the registered voters; it’s even worse if you consider eligible voters. Come on, almost 70 percent of the voters didn’t care to vote for Joe Blow, but “The Media” tells us a different story.
“Two party system” is used almost as if it were were written in the Constitution. It is just a fiction of convenience. If you think about it, we had a de facto “three party system” in the middle of the Twentieth Century. There were the Republicans, the Northern Democrats, and the Southern Democrats. The two parts of the Democratic Party came together on many issues, but if the Southern Democrats detected any threat to “States Rights” they were agin’ it. The miracle was that a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, broke the log jam. Now many of those Southern Democrats are Republicans.
Now Southern Republicans and “Tea Party” Republicans have all but drowned out “moderate” Republicans. “Moderate” Republicans being those who want to work with Democrats to solve real problems. What’s a “real problem”? A problem that affects the “General Welfare” as called for in the Constitution. That is, how do we make government work for all of our people, not just a chosen few.
This impasse many call a “dysfunctional Congress” and blame each and every member of Congress for this problem. Interestingly, some commentators point out that in almost every district or state, a sizable number of people don’t think their Representative or Senators are part of the problem.
Along with this view many say that “government is the problem”. But it is “We, the People” who have voted for this government.
However, some of the same people who think government is inefficient think that the United States should and can solve all the problems of the world. Worse, they think the United States should use force to do so. Ah, another cliché, “Leader of the Free World”. Who in the “Free World” outside the United States had a vote in selecting the President of the United States?
When those who want to exercise their will on other countries with military force, they call it “defense”. But defense of what? Defense of our homeland? Or defense of their view of the world? A thought experiment: if we hadn’t “defended” ourselves in Afghanistan, Iraq, and dozens of other places, would there have been a “9/11”?
“Greedy corporations” is a cliché used often by the “Left” as if all corporations were the scum of the earth. Interestingly, many of them find out about meetings complaining about corporations on their computers and cell phones and drive to the meetings in their private automobiles. In other words, they depend on large corporations to complain about large corporations. It makes me think of a Lenin quote, but I don’t think it quite fits: “A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with.”
Just like we have good government and bad government, we have good corporations and bad corporations. For every hidden recall, how many public acknowledgments of corporate problems do we hear?
The latest effort at corporate responsibility is by General Mills. Because of the various sources of grain it has, it makes every effort to make sure its products are what they say they are. To ensure gluten-free products they use expensive machines to separate wheat from other grains. As with all human systems, stuff happens. As soon as General Mills found out about the problem, they recalled supposedly gluten-free products. Interestingly, it may have been the truck of a small, independent contractor that had the mixed grain. For more details, see the Star Tribune of 2015-10-10.
To end on a negative note, I’ll fault General Mills for deceptive packaging. We had Golden Valley Nut Bars as a snack this past Sunday. The nut bars ended at the border between the clear part of the wrapper and the opaque part. Even considering the need to seal the top of the package, three quarters of an inch more of bar could have fit in the package.
Also published online in the Duluth Reader, 2015-10-15 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/14/6089_slicing_and_dicing_clich_s
The use of this cliché is most strange. Those who consider themselves “conservative” complain about “the liberal media” even though they get their news through the likes of Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. Those who consider themselves “liberal” complain about “the conservative media” even though they get their news through PBS and the New York Times.
Maybe the truth is that most “media” present a wide variety of news, including what a “conservative” says and what a “liberal” says. The “media” is “biased” because some of the news includes views that the complainer disagrees with.
And maybe the complainers watch too much TV news and don’t read enough newspapers. Most papers include a variety of columnists and a large variety of opposing view in their letters columns.
If “The Media” has any bias, it is partly “laziness” and partly lack of resources. It is rare that we see on the front page “Joe Blow” came in second to a de facto “none of the above”. That is, Joe Blow received 55 percent of the 55 percent turnout, giving him a “landslide”. Huh? 55 percent of 55 percent represents a tad over 30 percent of the registered voters; it’s even worse if you consider eligible voters. Come on, almost 70 percent of the voters didn’t care to vote for Joe Blow, but “The Media” tells us a different story.
“Two party system” is used almost as if it were were written in the Constitution. It is just a fiction of convenience. If you think about it, we had a de facto “three party system” in the middle of the Twentieth Century. There were the Republicans, the Northern Democrats, and the Southern Democrats. The two parts of the Democratic Party came together on many issues, but if the Southern Democrats detected any threat to “States Rights” they were agin’ it. The miracle was that a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, broke the log jam. Now many of those Southern Democrats are Republicans.
Now Southern Republicans and “Tea Party” Republicans have all but drowned out “moderate” Republicans. “Moderate” Republicans being those who want to work with Democrats to solve real problems. What’s a “real problem”? A problem that affects the “General Welfare” as called for in the Constitution. That is, how do we make government work for all of our people, not just a chosen few.
This impasse many call a “dysfunctional Congress” and blame each and every member of Congress for this problem. Interestingly, some commentators point out that in almost every district or state, a sizable number of people don’t think their Representative or Senators are part of the problem.
Along with this view many say that “government is the problem”. But it is “We, the People” who have voted for this government.
However, some of the same people who think government is inefficient think that the United States should and can solve all the problems of the world. Worse, they think the United States should use force to do so. Ah, another cliché, “Leader of the Free World”. Who in the “Free World” outside the United States had a vote in selecting the President of the United States?
When those who want to exercise their will on other countries with military force, they call it “defense”. But defense of what? Defense of our homeland? Or defense of their view of the world? A thought experiment: if we hadn’t “defended” ourselves in Afghanistan, Iraq, and dozens of other places, would there have been a “9/11”?
“Greedy corporations” is a cliché used often by the “Left” as if all corporations were the scum of the earth. Interestingly, many of them find out about meetings complaining about corporations on their computers and cell phones and drive to the meetings in their private automobiles. In other words, they depend on large corporations to complain about large corporations. It makes me think of a Lenin quote, but I don’t think it quite fits: “A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with.”
Just like we have good government and bad government, we have good corporations and bad corporations. For every hidden recall, how many public acknowledgments of corporate problems do we hear?
The latest effort at corporate responsibility is by General Mills. Because of the various sources of grain it has, it makes every effort to make sure its products are what they say they are. To ensure gluten-free products they use expensive machines to separate wheat from other grains. As with all human systems, stuff happens. As soon as General Mills found out about the problem, they recalled supposedly gluten-free products. Interestingly, it may have been the truck of a small, independent contractor that had the mixed grain. For more details, see the Star Tribune of 2015-10-10.
To end on a negative note, I’ll fault General Mills for deceptive packaging. We had Golden Valley Nut Bars as a snack this past Sunday. The nut bars ended at the border between the clear part of the wrapper and the opaque part. Even considering the need to seal the top of the package, three quarters of an inch more of bar could have fit in the package.
Also published online in the Duluth Reader, 2015-10-15 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/14/6089_slicing_and_dicing_clich_s
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Quote of the day: Smart action or mooching?
"Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break you're a smart businessman, but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a moocher?"
- "Jon Stewart pins down the media with their own words"
Unfortunately, the headline is one of those sweeping generalizations that tar a large group with the same broad brush. Jon Stewart is part of the media. Does he also call one advantage smart action and the other mooching?
- "Jon Stewart pins down the media with their own words"
Unfortunately, the headline is one of those sweeping generalizations that tar a large group with the same broad brush. Jon Stewart is part of the media. Does he also call one advantage smart action and the other mooching?
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Just who is "The Media"?
I was in a University for Senior class on Social Justice this morning. In one discussion, several people complained about "the media" not reporting many aspects of the news, for example, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq.
From my iPad, I searched the New York Times for "iraq civilian death" and received a list of over 31,000 articles. I told the class this number and read the five headlines that appeared on my screen:
"A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq", 2010-10-22
"W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited", 2008-01-10
"Civilian Death Toll Reaches New High in Iraq, U.N. Says", 2008-11-23
"Civilian toll in Iraq increased in November"
"Civilian deaths in Iraq decrease significantly in one month"
The text shown for the last gives the lower figure as 922!
I did the same search for the Duluth News Tribune; nothing was shown from its entire archive. If I searched for "Iraq death" I received 17 items. One of these from 2006-11-10 gave an Iraqi Health Ministry estimate of 150,000 civilian war deaths.
But we shouldn't fault the DNT too much for this lack; it is not a national paper like the NYT and focuses more of its news on local and state events.
Many of these critics probably watch TV news a lot. TV news has the burden of limited time; the news given on a half-hour broadcast (oops! 22 minutes excluding commercials) is about as much as you can read in a newspaper in five minutes or less. If your "the media" is TV; is it any wonder that you miss a lot of in-depth coverage?
From my iPad, I searched the New York Times for "iraq civilian death" and received a list of over 31,000 articles. I told the class this number and read the five headlines that appeared on my screen:
"A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq", 2010-10-22
"W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited", 2008-01-10
"Civilian Death Toll Reaches New High in Iraq, U.N. Says", 2008-11-23
"Civilian toll in Iraq increased in November"
"Civilian deaths in Iraq decrease significantly in one month"
The text shown for the last gives the lower figure as 922!
I did the same search for the Duluth News Tribune; nothing was shown from its entire archive. If I searched for "Iraq death" I received 17 items. One of these from 2006-11-10 gave an Iraqi Health Ministry estimate of 150,000 civilian war deaths.
But we shouldn't fault the DNT too much for this lack; it is not a national paper like the NYT and focuses more of its news on local and state events.
Many of these critics probably watch TV news a lot. TV news has the burden of limited time; the news given on a half-hour broadcast (oops! 22 minutes excluding commercials) is about as much as you can read in a newspaper in five minutes or less. If your "the media" is TV; is it any wonder that you miss a lot of in-depth coverage?
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Headline overstatement
Sometimes newspaper headline writers make it too easy for people to generalize about "the media". A case in point is a headline in today's Star Tribune: "Consumer fury forcing banks to kill debit fees".
Are all consumers furious? Are those consumers who have withdrawn funds "furious" or just annoyed? How many consumers actually withdrew funds? How many sent letters or made calls of annoyance? None of this quantitative data was in the article. The closest is "cited customer feedback".
Of course, if even one percent withdrew funds that would probably get the banks' attention.
The problem is that space doesn't allow easy full-disclosure. Let's see: "Abnormal withdrawal rate kills bank debit fees", "Numerous customer complaints lead banks to kill debit fees", or "Widespread press coverage leads banks to kill debt fees".
Are all consumers furious? Are those consumers who have withdrawn funds "furious" or just annoyed? How many consumers actually withdrew funds? How many sent letters or made calls of annoyance? None of this quantitative data was in the article. The closest is "cited customer feedback".
Of course, if even one percent withdrew funds that would probably get the banks' attention.
The problem is that space doesn't allow easy full-disclosure. Let's see: "Abnormal withdrawal rate kills bank debit fees", "Numerous customer complaints lead banks to kill debit fees", or "Widespread press coverage leads banks to kill debt fees".
Friday, October 07, 2011
"The media" and Occupy Wall St.
I was at a meeting about politics earlier this week, and some people who can be counted on to take a "strong left" opinion complained bitterly that "the media" had not covered the Occupy Wall St. demonstrations.
From the Coffee Party http://www.coffeepartyusa.com I knew that it was in the planning stages, and I knew when it began, and I knew when major newspapers started covering it.
But is every large newspaper or news network supposed to cover every demonstration anywhere in the U. S. when only a dozen or so people show up. It's sort of like people complaining that their event wasn't covered in the local newspaper. Did any of the event organizers let the newspaper know? What competing stories were covered at that time?
Now the Occupy Wall St. movement has gained critical mass and even editorials are being written about it. As opposed to the Tea Party complaint about "an excessively powerful federal government","an active and angry band of citizens is insisting that the concentrated power most Americans need to fear exists on Wall Street and in the financial system." - E. J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, reprinted in the Star Tribune as "The conservative tide ebbs, the progressive tide flows", 2011-10-06.
From the Coffee Party http://www.coffeepartyusa.com I knew that it was in the planning stages, and I knew when it began, and I knew when major newspapers started covering it.
But is every large newspaper or news network supposed to cover every demonstration anywhere in the U. S. when only a dozen or so people show up. It's sort of like people complaining that their event wasn't covered in the local newspaper. Did any of the event organizers let the newspaper know? What competing stories were covered at that time?
Now the Occupy Wall St. movement has gained critical mass and even editorials are being written about it. As opposed to the Tea Party complaint about "an excessively powerful federal government","an active and angry band of citizens is insisting that the concentrated power most Americans need to fear exists on Wall Street and in the financial system." - E. J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, reprinted in the Star Tribune as "The conservative tide ebbs, the progressive tide flows", 2011-10-06.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
"The Media" is biased, but not the way many think it is
"The Media" is some mythical beast devouring the minds of people with slanted information. Slanted is often in the mind of the complainant. Too often the charge is "The Media" is "too liberal". I've observed "too liberal" often means "The Media" doesn't emphasize a supposedly "conservative" view sufficiently according to the view of the complainants.
I think "The Media" gives too much coverage to views of all kinds that are based more on emotion than on fact, irrespective of where on the "political spectrum" they may be.
"The Media" reinforces the emotional impact of its coverage with a different, more worrisome bias. A bias towards economy of words and away from nuance. Just think of some of the headlines:
Angry voters
Consumers hold tight to their wallets
Investors were buoyed/dejected by …
Americans think…
These headlines convey "all voters", "all consumers", "all investors", or "all Americans" are acting as one. What we rarely know is if the implied "all" should be replaced by "most", "many", or "some". Sometimes we can read deep into an article that a poll claims that 45% of respondents answered with view A, 40% answered with view B, and 15% had no opinion. That certainly doesn't justify a headline "People hold view A".
Oh, yeah! It's probably even more problematic. Few polls admit how many people hung up without responding.
For more of my rants on generalization, see "General Ization Battles Truth".
I think "The Media" gives too much coverage to views of all kinds that are based more on emotion than on fact, irrespective of where on the "political spectrum" they may be.
"The Media" reinforces the emotional impact of its coverage with a different, more worrisome bias. A bias towards economy of words and away from nuance. Just think of some of the headlines:
Angry voters
Consumers hold tight to their wallets
Investors were buoyed/dejected by …
Americans think…
These headlines convey "all voters", "all consumers", "all investors", or "all Americans" are acting as one. What we rarely know is if the implied "all" should be replaced by "most", "many", or "some". Sometimes we can read deep into an article that a poll claims that 45% of respondents answered with view A, 40% answered with view B, and 15% had no opinion. That certainly doesn't justify a headline "People hold view A".
Oh, yeah! It's probably even more problematic. Few polls admit how many people hung up without responding.
For more of my rants on generalization, see "General Ization Battles Truth".
Friday, July 10, 2009
Who's impaling Palin?
Many are complaining that "The Media" are out to get Sarah Palin. My own take is that they are only reporting what she says and does. The more that gets reported, the more she goes on the defensive. When a politician goes on the defensive, a good reporter looks for what else may be going on.
When partisans of whatever stripe feel one of their own is being attacked, they too often gather in a circle and blame outsiders. Too rarely do they ask themselves what may be true about the reporting.
One partisan who did look more deeply into the Palin story, Peggy Noonan, wrote an opinion piece for a partisan media, The Wall Street Journal. See "A Farewell to Harms", Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal Online, 2009-07-10.
When partisans of whatever stripe feel one of their own is being attacked, they too often gather in a circle and blame outsiders. Too rarely do they ask themselves what may be true about the reporting.
One partisan who did look more deeply into the Palin story, Peggy Noonan, wrote an opinion piece for a partisan media, The Wall Street Journal. See "A Farewell to Harms", Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal Online, 2009-07-10.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Palin and Africa, who said what when?
Bob Lundegaard's letter ("The Palin Effect, McCain camp should have given her a map", Star Tribune, November 15, 2008) set off some alarms in my head, especially when he wrote about "the media" and even more so when he wrote about "the media elite".
I've written elsewhere that "the" is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, second only to "they". Too many people use "the" for sweeping generalizations about a particular group when it is really a few with whom they have a complaint. "The media" covers a wide variety of broadcasters, publishers, and bloggers. The opinions and skills of the people vary so greatly that one cannot really generalize. Can one lump Rush Limbaugh and Arianna Huffington together in "the media? Or a skilled writer like George Will with a ranting blogger who uses only ad hominem attacks?
Lundegaard complained that the timing of the release of the story about Palin and Africa confirms "people's suspicions that the media elite can't be trusted." I submit that the timing may have been because a certain news team could be trusted. However, to find this out, I had to spend more time than any of the online commenters to Lundegaard's letter seem to have spent.
The first inkling I got of a really big problem was when I saw CNET News item about a McCain advisor named Michael Eisenstadt claiming to leak the story to Fox News. This story was actually a New York Times story published in Arts and Entertainment, Nov. 12, "A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence". The man posing as Eisenstadt said he really was not the leak.
I can't remember all the twists and turns of my search for the facts, but I did find two Fox News broadcasts on YouTube of interviews with Carl Cameron, Chief Political Correspondent for Fox News. These both took place on November 5, one on the late afternoon news and one on the Bill O'Reilly program. On both he mentions Palin not knowing Africa was a continent. He mentions no sources except in the first he says "McCain aides told me today..."
When I searched Fox News for "Palin Africa" I found 25 hits in the ranges May 5 to September 10, September 18 to October 26, and November 7 to November 16. Either Fox News' search software leaves gaps or Fox News has pulled certain pieces.
I did find a news recap that mentioned the Africa charge. Jane Hall said on Fox News Watch on November 8, "And Newsweek had it and Carl Cameron had it and Hugh Miller had it." I don't know who Hugh Miller is, but when I searched Newsweek for "Palin Africa" I had zero hits.
I also did a search of the Star Tribune and the New York Times. The Star Tribune has nothing on "Palin Africa" until Lundegaard's letter. The New York Times has six hits after the election. Four were by columnists who attributed the remark to Fox News or Carl Cameron or stated it was a contention, one was the story about the hoax, and the sixth was about Palin defending herself against the charge, "Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides 'Cruel and Mean-Spirited'", November 8. She is quoted as saying, “For the most part, absolutely, media persons, reporters, have been absolutely right on and there has been fairness and objectivity. There have been some stinkers, though..."
So, where does this "revelation" that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent come from. One could say that Carl Cameron made it up; Wikipedia says that he has fabricated stories in the past. One could also say that one remark by Palin has been blown out of proportion and context. Apparently she did have a discussion about South Africa and was unsure whether it was about South Africa the country or southern Africa the region. If this is so, we should cut her some slack. Whatever, Carl Cameron is not "the media".
Who is "the media, who agreed to hold the story until after the election"? Remember Jane Hall's comment about Newsweek and Carl Cameron? For many years, Newsweek has done "Secrets of the Campaign" reportage. They offer to document many of the behind the scenes events in exchange for the promise not to publish anything until after the election. I think they have gotten co-operation from both Republicans and Democrats for many elections. Newsweek isn't "the media" but they have shown they can be trusted. You can see dozens of clips of both the McCain and Obama campaigns that were not made available until November 5. You might enjoy them if you have a few days free.
See also "Palin and Africa, who said what when? Sources for article"
I've written elsewhere that "the" is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, second only to "they". Too many people use "the" for sweeping generalizations about a particular group when it is really a few with whom they have a complaint. "The media" covers a wide variety of broadcasters, publishers, and bloggers. The opinions and skills of the people vary so greatly that one cannot really generalize. Can one lump Rush Limbaugh and Arianna Huffington together in "the media? Or a skilled writer like George Will with a ranting blogger who uses only ad hominem attacks?
Lundegaard complained that the timing of the release of the story about Palin and Africa confirms "people's suspicions that the media elite can't be trusted." I submit that the timing may have been because a certain news team could be trusted. However, to find this out, I had to spend more time than any of the online commenters to Lundegaard's letter seem to have spent.
The first inkling I got of a really big problem was when I saw CNET News item about a McCain advisor named Michael Eisenstadt claiming to leak the story to Fox News. This story was actually a New York Times story published in Arts and Entertainment, Nov. 12, "A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence". The man posing as Eisenstadt said he really was not the leak.
I can't remember all the twists and turns of my search for the facts, but I did find two Fox News broadcasts on YouTube of interviews with Carl Cameron, Chief Political Correspondent for Fox News. These both took place on November 5, one on the late afternoon news and one on the Bill O'Reilly program. On both he mentions Palin not knowing Africa was a continent. He mentions no sources except in the first he says "McCain aides told me today..."
When I searched Fox News for "Palin Africa" I found 25 hits in the ranges May 5 to September 10, September 18 to October 26, and November 7 to November 16. Either Fox News' search software leaves gaps or Fox News has pulled certain pieces.
I did find a news recap that mentioned the Africa charge. Jane Hall said on Fox News Watch on November 8, "And Newsweek had it and Carl Cameron had it and Hugh Miller had it." I don't know who Hugh Miller is, but when I searched Newsweek for "Palin Africa" I had zero hits.
I also did a search of the Star Tribune and the New York Times. The Star Tribune has nothing on "Palin Africa" until Lundegaard's letter. The New York Times has six hits after the election. Four were by columnists who attributed the remark to Fox News or Carl Cameron or stated it was a contention, one was the story about the hoax, and the sixth was about Palin defending herself against the charge, "Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides 'Cruel and Mean-Spirited'", November 8. She is quoted as saying, “For the most part, absolutely, media persons, reporters, have been absolutely right on and there has been fairness and objectivity. There have been some stinkers, though..."
So, where does this "revelation" that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent come from. One could say that Carl Cameron made it up; Wikipedia says that he has fabricated stories in the past. One could also say that one remark by Palin has been blown out of proportion and context. Apparently she did have a discussion about South Africa and was unsure whether it was about South Africa the country or southern Africa the region. If this is so, we should cut her some slack. Whatever, Carl Cameron is not "the media".
Who is "the media, who agreed to hold the story until after the election"? Remember Jane Hall's comment about Newsweek and Carl Cameron? For many years, Newsweek has done "Secrets of the Campaign" reportage. They offer to document many of the behind the scenes events in exchange for the promise not to publish anything until after the election. I think they have gotten co-operation from both Republicans and Democrats for many elections. Newsweek isn't "the media" but they have shown they can be trusted. You can see dozens of clips of both the McCain and Obama campaigns that were not made available until November 5. You might enjoy them if you have a few days free.
See also "Palin and Africa, who said what when? Sources for article"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)