Bias, a CBS Insider Exposes How the Medi a Distort

“Gerry Studds had to die for NBC Nightly News to inform viewers of how the former Democratic Congressman had a sexual relationship with 17-year-old male congressional page, misconduct for which the House in 1983 censured him, but did not prompt Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill and other leaders to force his resignation -- nor raise calls for O'Neill's resignation. Despite the Democratic hypocrisy given their current calls for Speaker Hastert's resignation and investigations of who knew what and when about Mark Foley, Saturday night -- two weeks into the media-fueled scandal -- was the first time, according to Nexis, any NBC News program mentioned Studds' name. Anchor John Seigenthaler, who called Studds "Gary," relayed how "from Massachusetts comes word of the death of former Democratic Congressman Gary Studds, the first openly gay Member of Congress." Seigenthaler then gave the gentlest of descriptions as he avoided the word "sexual" in his one sentence on the matter: "In 1983 the House of Representatives censured Studds for his relationship with a teenage page."”

“It was just sex. Move on. [sarcasm]”

“So was the whole Broaddrick case...but that would hurt the Dems so they let it slide...LOL”

“Then there is the PRIVATE response (LOL)

http://www.break.com/index/north_korean_ad.html”

“Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 17, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Network news stories have painted a bleak picture of an economy in decline in an effort to keep President Bush's approval numbers low, according to a study released Monday by a group dedicated to challenging misconceptions in the media about free enterprise.

The Business and Media Institute (BMI) report "Bad News Bears: How Networks Distort a Good Economy and Batter President Bush" is the result of an analysis of all stories referring to the "economy" or "economic" news on the evening news shows of all three broadcast networks between Aug. 1, 2005, and July 31, 2006.

Reporters on ABC, CBS and NBC "treated gas prices as a metaphor for the economy -- only when they were high," said Dan Gainor, director of the BMI, which is a division of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of Cybercast News Service.

"And a slowing housing market coming off two record years was just another club used against Republican incumbents by a pessimistic press," Gainor added.

"But the truth of the economy is far different. The United States continues to enjoy solid job growth," the BMI director noted. "In the last year, 1.7 million new jobs were added, and nearly 6 million have been created since August 2003 -- a streak of more than three years of positive growth.

"Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Gas prices have declined once again -- more than 75 cents from their recent highs," Gainor stated. "And though the economy actually grew just 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006, that followed the rapid expansion of the first quarter -- revised upward to 5.6 percent."

Nevertheless, "polls have repeatedly shown a public that is dissatisfied with the economy under President Bush," he said.

"A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey said 64 percent of those questioned thought economic conditions were fair or poor -- and that wasn't even Bush's low point," the BMI director stated. "The May New York Times/CBS poll gave Bush just a 28 percent rating for the economy."

The BMI study resulted in several significant findings, including:

-- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.

-- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs. More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.

-- Man-on-the-street interviews spin stories: Reporters used ordinary people to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive. Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative accounts six times as often as positive ones.

-- Worst network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the "CBS Evening News" delivered a negative view of the economy -- easily the worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news of jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS's brief stories were positive.

-- Best network: ABC was hardly the "best" anything for its economic coverage. It simply wasn't as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56 percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36 percent positive.

To improve coverage, BMI recommends that the networks carefully select a range of economists and analysts to balance negative reporting and cover stories that reflect the economic data, not the reporter's opinion.

The network news should "educate the public about what the economic data really mean," Gainor added. "Don't just report changing numbers like sports scores."”

“The sad thing, moonglo, is that it's been so obvious and yet so many people either ignore it or deny it.




The Dow has hit SEVEN record highs in the past two weeks.

WHERE ARE THE HEADLINES?

I don’t know about anyone else’s local paper, but the first story about the Dow reaching ANY record high just appeared in today’s NYT affiliate paper. The story is buried on page 6 in section B.

Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but I think that’s BIG news. It's especially big after we've been inundated with economic doom and gloom stories from the papers and TV news.


It’s just like the nightly news about Iraq. How are the schools coming along? How far along is infrastructure rebuilding? What’s happening with the restoration of Iraqi oil exports? Is anyone there starting up a business?

I'm not as well informaed as I might be because the only news I see is about death and destruction. I understand that death and destruction is important and sells, but isn’t there any other news in Iraq worth covering?



Despite the fact that we all know better, many people still believe everything they read in the papers and everything they see on TV. And if the media doesn’t cover it, it can’t be important.”

“Here is a cute one....what would happen if say a Republican used even a slight racial slur...(remember Trent Lott??????)

What happens in the media when a white Defeatocrat candidate calls a Black Republican "slavish"...NADA, ZIP, ZERO...

http://www.gazette.net/stories/101706/businew144243_31988.shtml”

“XL, as long as you’re here, I’ve got another one for you.

My range has a yearly barbeque. It is a meet-and-greet for various local politicians. It was advertised as a barbeque, and it was advertised as a chance to listen to some politicians. This was all that was mentioned on the invitations.

There were over 300 people in attendance. Many of the guests were not members of our range and had never shot anything more than spitballs. The barbeque setup took over the entire rifle range. The political booths took over the entire pistol range. Waaaaaay in the back, we have a small range for those of us who are RS officers.

During the barbeque, we had three officers supervising folks who wanted to take turns shooting two 22s on the small back range. We walked back there to check it out. We saw two people shooting and one person waiting in line. The vast majority of people at the barbeque never did any shooting and many people probably didn’t even know that the range was back there.


The next day there was an article in our local paper.

The journalist described it as A SHOOTING EVENT. There also was mention made of it being a political event. There was never any mention of a barbeque in the article.

So the picture created for the minds of the anti-gun left was one of a political shoot-em-up... Yeeeeehaw!!

Nobody who was there, except a journalist with an agenda, would have described this barbeque and political get-together as A SHOOTING EVENT.
last edited: 10/18/06 8:07:34 AM”

“LOL...yep I have grown to understand the media will write what they want.

A few months ago I was working a fire when I decided to take off my air pack for a better look at something. I walk out of the house (had just taken my helmet off) when I hear the shutter of a camera cycle. It was a local reporter (good friend0. Later I walked over and whispered to him, "You have a photo of me without an airpack or helmet coming out of the house....could that disappear?"
He laughed and deleted it. The funny thing is the other media gets pissed when I talk to him and not them. One night I gave the usual "No comment" reply to questions. A few minutes later he walked up and asked me how long I was going to be there. I looked at him and said, "Heck hang around after we are through we will probably go for lunch."
He said,"Lunch? its 2AM...." Then he thought...and said,"AAAH now I understand."


Am I selective of who I talk to...heck yes, the press has a right to be there..but I have no requirement to talk to ALL OF THEM.”

“I have a dream, one day advertising on the Major Leftist Media (ABCCBSNBCMSNBCCNN) outlets Evening News will sell for A buck (thats $1.00 for you who don't know) a minute.....”

“NY Times Co. 3Q Profit Plunges 39%, Belo Also Down

By E&P Staff and The Associated Press

Published: October 19, 2006 10:15 AM ET

CHICAGO The New York Times Co. reported Thursday that its third-quarter 2006 profit from continuing operations plunged 39.2% on costs related to its job cuts and a loss on its sale of its 50% stake in the Discovery Times Channel.

Meanwhile, Belo, publisher of The Dallas Morning News, said net income for the quarter fell to $19.2 million, or 19 cents per share, compared to $22.1 million, or 20 cents per share, during the same period last year.

At the New York Times Co., 3Q operating profit was down 48% from the same period in 2005 to $20.5 million on total revenues that slipped 2.4% to $739.6 million.

Reflecting a continuing tough advertising environment, total ad revenue was off 4.2% to 465,476.

The Times Co. said it earned $14 million, or 10 cents per share, compared with $23.1 milion, or 16 cents per share, in the third quarter of 2005.

Charges related to the staff reduction and the cable TV investment loss each reduced per-share price by 3 cents.

"Our third-quarter results reflect the continued weakness in the print advertising marketplace," Times Co. President and CEO Janet L. Robinson said in a statement. "We are, however, strongly encouraged by the discipline our teams have shown in holding the line on operating costs, which were virtually flat with the third quarter of last year. The leadership we are showing in transitioning from our print-centric distribution model to become a multi-platform content provider continues to pay dividends through the robust growth in our Internet-related revenues, which contributed more than 8% of the company's revenues in the quarter and are on track to exceed $250 million by year end."

Times Co. noted that for this reporting period its broadcast media group are now classified as discontinued operations. In September, the company announced plans to sell the group.

Newsprint expense decreased 2.2% in the third quarter, with 11.1% of the decrease attributable to lower consumption, partially offset by an 8.9% price increase.

News Media Group revenues decreased 3.0% to $721.3 million, the company said.

Advertising revenues decreased 5.1%, due to weakness in print advertising at The New York Times Media Group and the New England Media Group, partially offset by higher online advertising revenues across the News Media Group, the company said.

Circulation revenues were down 1.3%, which the company attributed mainly to weakness at the New England Media Group.

Operating profit for the online business increased to $6.4 million from $3.8 million. All told, Internet-related businesses generated $62.8 million in revenue, up from $50.5 million in the year-ago period.

The Times said its previously announced plans to consolidate New York area printing at its College Point, N.Y., plan and to sublease its Edison, N.J. plan, is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2008.

The Times said it expects a return of "at least 15%" on its $135 million investment in the consolidation, with a payback period of five and a half years. It said it currently estimates it will record total costs to close the Edison plan to be in the range of $104 to $128 million.

TimesSelect, the fee-based product on NYTimes.com, currently has 551,000 subscribers, the Times Co. said, with about 65% receiving TimesSelect as part their home-delivery subscriptions, and 35% receiving it from online-only subscriptions. Since its launch in September 2005, TimesSelect has generated more than $8.5 million in revenues, the company said.

Meanwhile, newspaper and television station owner Belo Corp. said Thursday third-quarter profit dropped 13% weighed down by charges, as revenue edged up slightly amid weak results from the company's newspaper group.

Belo, publisher of The Dallas Morning News, said net income for the quarter fell to $19.2 million, or 19 cents per share, compared to $22.1 million, or 20 cents per share, during the same period last year.

Results for the latest quarter were hurt by $5.4 million, or 3 cents per share, in severance charges for a voluntary severance program at the Dallas Morning News. They were also impacted by $10 million, or 6 cents per share, in transition costs associated with its technology initiatives and $2.9 million, or 2 cents per share, in stock-based compensation costs.

Last year's results included a $3.5 million, or 2 cents per share, credit to network compensation and an impact of 4 cents per share from lost revenues and incremental expenses associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial were looking for third-quarter earnings of 18 cents per share.

Revenue gained 0.8 percent to $376.4 million from $373.4 million, missing analysts' estimates of $386.3 million. Television group revenue rose 6.9 percent, while newspaper group revenue fell 4.2 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff and The Associated Press (letters@editorandpublisher.com)”

“Picking up on Monday's item in "The Note," the weekday ABCNews.com political compilation, titled "How the (liberal) Old Media plans to cover the last two weeks of the election," FNC's Bill O'Reilly brought aboard ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin, who confirmed his belief that conservatives have good reason to view the media as hostile to their views. Halperin conceded: "If I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break at the end of an election. We've got to make sure we do better so conservatives don't have to be concerned about that. It's just, it's not fair." And, he amazingly admitted: "The mindset at ABC, where you and I used to be colleagues at, at the other big news organizations, it's just too focused on being more favorable to Nancy Pelosi, say, than Newt Gingrich, being more down on the Republicans' chances than perhaps is warranted..."”

“Oh yeah, Halperin is in danger now...breaking from "ZEE PARTY LINE" is like losing faith in the MOTHERLAND in the Old Soviet Union...he's a goner.

Why is it when a conservative agrees with liberal ideas he is "tolerant and enlightenend"

But a Libbie does the same he is risking being hanged from a lightpost.
last edited: 10/26/06 1:54:29 PM”

“It's refreshing to hear a news-media type be honest & state what we've all known for quite some time. My hat's off to Halperin.”

“LOL...he has the life expectency of a rabbi in Teheran”

“



”

“Katie should do the NakedNews (.com).

I'd watch it a few times.”

“Once maybe, just out of morbid curiosity.”

“

”

“Yep, the same media that refuses to show Americans jumping to their deaths out of the WTC will show terrorists shooting American Troops. I would calmly mention to US troops in Iraq and the Iraq govt that CNN is having their press passes revoked.

They show up on their own treat em like we did in the Gulf War.”

“

”

“Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

Gee, I wonder why Katie Kouric's numbers are so low...

http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-10-31-CBSENCouric.wmv

http://newsbusters.org/node/8743
last edited: 11/01/06 6:54:21 AM”

“LOL...heck Ted ("the Red") Turner even admitted that Fox was the only conservative/moderate news station. He made the comment, "Heck let them have one station to report the news."

Translation (if you didn't figure it out from the famed CNN RUSSIA special) "We are liberal socialists."”

“Proof the Mainstream Media Is Left Wing
Wednesday, November 01, 2006

By John Gibson

I have long thought the mainstream media is decidedly left wing. Now
there's proof.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs did an accounting of the network
newscasts from September 5 thru October 22 and found an overwhelming
liberal bias.

On the "Big Three" network newscasts, the audit showed a clear jihad
against the Republican Party. Only 12 percent of election stories that
aired on NBC, ABC, or CBS could be regarded as remotely "favorable" to
Republicans.

In contrast, as The Washington Times put it this morning, "Democrats basked
in glory." The study showed that 77 percent of news accounts in the
six-week period offered favorable evaluations of Democratic candidates and
lawmakers.

Robert Lichter, director of the CMPA, said: "The numbers are pretty
striking. The coverage has become a referendum on Republican leadership."

The killer stat from this study: Midterm elections in 2002 warranted only
35 stories from the "Big Three." Midterms in 2006 got 167 stories, and
77percent were pro-Dem.

Now, we've known for many years that reporters, editors and news executives
are overwhelmingly liberal or Democrat. There really isn't much point
debating that anymore. But what's changed here — this time around — is the
willingness to come out of the closet. Instead of just tilting left in the
story while pretending to be objective, the mask is now off. The mainstream
media, typified by the "Big Three," is rooting for the Dems to win, and
slant coverage to make it happen.

They want to make sure the conservative argument is shouted down, buried
and made entirely disreputable. They do it with coverage: story selection,
interview selection, sound bite selection and snarky scripts, and lead the
viewers to their network conclusions that were set in stone at the 9 a.m.
meeting.

These are people who think so little of their own vaunted tradition of
objectivity that they are willing to throw it all away just to see their
favorites win an election. And why is that?

It all comes down to Bush. It all comes down to the huge number of elites
in this country who think it is their duty to bring the Bush era to an end,
to bury it, and marginalize anyone who says Bush was really right all
along.

Stand by. More of this is coming, especially if the Dems win and they get
subpoena power. This is what they have been living for.

That's My Word.”

“I really want to start a web page dedicated to listing the companies that advertise during the BIG three news times. I know the companies do not pick when their ads will run...but I bet if KMART called CBS and said, "Anytime but then" it would be taken off.”

“LOL..I love it, heck since the 42nd administration when the Administration sold most of the information for bribes it has been out there.

Besides I thought Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program..whats the big deal (LOL). I also wonder how many control parts on the Iranian Rockets look surprisingly like stuff Loral Aerospace made.”

“"michelle is hot"

I remember the first time I ever saw her on the news. I thought, "My gawd! She's smokin'!".”

“It's hard to give too much credibility to a study that puts the Drudge Report left of center.”

“pedxing - Do you even read the Drudge Report? By a large majority, most of the articles are linked to left-wing sources such as the NYT, ABCNews, the AP, Reuters, etc. His stories definitely lean left.

I think you're assuming because Matt himself is more conservative that his website must be, but there is no way that anyone using logic and actually looking at the site could come to the conclusion that it is a right-leaning website.

I went to his site right now as I type this and there are a total of (2) articles that just be reading the headline, could possibly lean left. One saying Arnold raised a lot of money (if you actually read the AP article, its a piece that tries to raise the concern that he is bowing to special interest group) -- and another saying Republican are highlighting a strong economy (if you read the NYT article it gives the Republican and the Democratic responses). TWO headlines above that one it says Republicans are glum about their election prospects.

The rest of the page is extremely Democratic or left-leaning with a few non-partisan type articles.

Do you have any logical reason for YOUR statement???
last edited: 11/04/06 4:42:08 PM”

“"pedxing - Do you even read the Drudge Report? By a large majority, most of the articles are linked to left-wing sources such as the NYT, ABCNews, the AP, Reuters, etc. His stories definitely lean left."


"“http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-11-04T213721Z_01_L04159002_RTRUKOC_0_US-TURKEY-MARCH.xml&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C2_worldNews-3”
moonglo
10:32:02 PM
11/04/06"



By your metric, you are liberal as well.
last edited: 11/05/06 9:01:21 AM”

“laqtis - I am not a website. Plus, as I pointed out, read the articles that are linked to. They are not right-leaning articles. The measure of "The Drudge Report's" political leanings should be the weight of conservative versus liberal articles linked to. The weight is heavier, by a pretty wide margin, on the left. Spin that however you want there spanky.
last edited: 11/05/06 9:05:45 AM”

“"laqtis - I am not a website. Plus, as I pointed out, read the articles that are linked to. They are not right-leaning articles."

My point is very clear even to the most general observer.


"The measure of "The Drudge Report's" political leanings should be the weight of conservative versus liberal articles linked to. The weight is heavier, by a pretty wide margin, on the left."


Evaluation of bias on a media website entails much more than what you listed. A person who could properly evaluate bias, would have employed the use of those measures and listed those measures used, rather than rely on just one and posting only one. This leads me to believe that the poster is offering mear opinion cloaked as fact.

"Spin that however you want there spanky."

Yet another personal attack.
last edited: 11/05/06 9:30:08 AM”

“Pretty funny Sarge. You're making my point for me. The method doesn't work weel for judging the political leanings of a new source.”

“Evaluation of bias on a media website entails much more than what you listed. A person who could properly evaluate bias, would have employed the use of those measures and listed those measures used, rather than rely on just one and posting only one. This leads me to believe that the poster is offering mear opinion cloaked as fact. - laqtis

laqtis - I have done just that on this website in the past, so your conclusion is wrong. I have listed primary sources where a scientific study has been done which listed all methods used in conducting the study.

Pretty funny Sarge. You're making my point for me. The method doesn't work weel for judging the political leanings of a new source. - pedxing

What the hell are you talking about?”

“"laqtis - I have done just that on this website in the past, so your conclusion is wrong. I have listed primary sources where a scientific study has been done which listed all methods used in conducting the study."



-- argumentum ad antiquitatem.

If it was intended to be taken into concideration in the claim you made, it would have been present and not left to assumption. I'm pretty sure you are familar with what can happen when one assumes.
last edited: 11/05/06 1:03:10 PM”

“It was you who assumed I hadn't presented the information.

Read your own post. "it would have been present and not left to assumption". The person that would be assuming in that case would be the reader, or in this case, you. You go on to acknowledge that you find it a negative to actually assume something when you say "you are familiar with what can happen when one assumes."

So yeah, you shouldn't have assumed that I hadn't given the information.”

“By the way laqtis - your little course or whatever method you used to teach you fallacy types failed to teach you how to use them in context, which really is the most important part.”

“Also, calling what I said a fallacy "argumentum ad antiquitatem" is incorrect. You have incorrectly applied the term. Not even close.”

“"“It was you who assumed I hadn't presented the information."

False statement. I didn't assume anything. I looked at your arguement, along with your support. That is why I came to the obvious conclusion.

You left out key support to your arguement, which you tried to patch later with the "I've made them in the past, so I'm covered" routine. Poor form.

The rest of your support is invalid and commits a possible strawman. In addtion, I am sure you are familar with the fact that contining personal attacks do nothing to increase the credibility of a poster.”

“False statement. I didn't assume anything. I looked at your arguement, along with your support. That is why I came to the obvious conclusion.

And THAT was an incorrect assumption! What don't you get here? YOU assumed (incorrectly) that the support wasn't given by me at some point, and you were wrong. In your words, "you are familiar with what can happen when one assumes". Are you joking here?

You left out key support to your arguement, which you tried to patch later with the "I've made them in the past, so I'm covered" routine. Poor form.

You're really reaching here. This isn't a debate where people have to present information for every point made. If you have a question, you can ask. How do we know you are who you are? Did you present a birth certificate? You made my point that you did not learn "context".

The rest of your support is invalid and commits a possible strawman. In addtion, I am sure you are familar with the fact that contining personal attacks do nothing to increase the credibility of a poster.

It's not invalid. You ASSUME it is because you didn't ask for supporting evidence. That was YOUR incorrect assumption, which is leading you to commit MORE incorrect assumptions. I am not using personal attacks either. I'm trying to tell you (although perhaps it's a futile attempt) that YOU should not assume things and that you need to learn to present things in context. Something you are making more and more obvious you are not willing to understand.”

“"And THAT was an incorrect assumption! What don't you get here? YOU assumed (incorrectly) that the support wasn't given by me at some point, and you were wrong. In your words, "you are familiar with what can happen when one assumes". Are you joking here?"

There was no assumption. I looked at your support, which obviously was weak. A person trying to make a clear arguement cannot rely supposed common knowledge. Your poor structure of your arguement is the undoing of it, not based on any assumptions made by me.


"You're really reaching here. This isn't a debate where people have to present information for every point made. If you have a question, you can ask. How do we know you are who you are? Did you present a birth certificate? You made my point that you did not learn "context"."


That's incorrect and a red herring. Any statement should come with proper support. The arugment you presented was light in this area, thus the reason why it fails.


"It's not invalid. You ASSUME it is because you didn't ask for supporting evidence. That was YOUR incorrect assumption, which is leading you to commit MORE incorrect assumptions."

Placing the presentation of evidence is on the presenter. If the the reader has to fill in the blanks of the arguement for the presenter, the presenter failed in proper presentation of the arguement.

"I'm trying to tell you (although perhaps it's a futile attempt) that YOU should not assume things and that you need to learn to present things in context. Something you are making more and more obvious you are not willing to understand."

Continued personal attacks do nothing to support your defense. Because you cannot refrain from such gross abuse of discourse, I will be unable to continue at this point.”

“http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/06/061106131346.my2qwtpm.html

The New York Times called for the deferment of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's execution, saying Iraq had not received "full justice."

The newspaper, which is opposed to the death penalty, said Iraq not only needed to hold Saddam fully accountable for his atrocities but also to heal and educate the nation he "ruthlessly divided."”

“laqtis is back at the PROFESSOR LAQ line..LOL "becuase I say it it is true."

Laq, I studied under some of the most liberal teachers in Graduate School. They had the same idea of Professorial Fascisim and when they would bring a "nebulous" quote I would respond with FACTS, and continue to bring the references the next day.

So using your education attitude is just silly.

Liberalisim is easy in the ivy covered walls of Academia, we live in the real world.”

“And this shocks you coming from one of the Supermarket Tabloid medias?

Hey I stopped watching network news when I found myself asking,"Wow I wonder if that is true?"”

“Wow.... NewsBusters are way slimy. Looking at that, I thought it was a New York times story. Actually, its a gross distortion of the story. It also reveals that some of the right (for example Stove and newsbusters


Check out the whole story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/opinion/28pubed.html?_r=1&n=&oref=slogin”

“LOL
Gaggle is a satirical comic strip.
You have been "Onioned", pedx. LOL”