The Obama administration hasn’t made much of a secret of its displeasure with Fox News. In June, the president said that there was “one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my
administration,” a claim so obvious in its target he needn’t name names. And in September, Obama skipped an appearance on Fox Sunday Morning, on the same day he found time to visit with all the other
major networks—and Univision, too.
Both incidents, and some other background, were recounted over the weekend by The New York Times’s Brian Stelter. The article is particularly notable because it is part of a series of outings where the White House has ratcheted up its harsh tone towards Fox.
“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House’s communications director, told Stelter, elaborating that “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news
organization.”
“Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” said Dunn during an appearance CNN. “Let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”
At the same time, Dunn has acknowledged that she has no beef with the network’s White House correspondent, that the President would likely appear on the network in the future, and that the White House’s press staff would continue to respond to queries from the network’s news staff.
While that implies that the White House’s attacks are more of a war of words than action, we’re wondering what you think of the administration’s attacks. Is the White House right that Fox—in all or in part—is almost tantamount to a Republican communications wing? Have they ceased to be a legitimate news organization? And what are the implications of the White House’s strategy of—if not by deeds, then certainly by words—of isolating Fox and its large audience?
Ceased to be a legitimate news organization? Were they ever a legitimate news organization? You know, I understand the move to try to undermine Fox, but I'm not necessarily sure it's a strategy that should be taken by the Administration. Someone has to do it, but the White House should, perhaps, try to rise above and open themselves (itself?) to everyone, regardless of which side of this particular ping pong table they are one.
It is a tricky issue, though, and I sympathize with what the Administration is doing. Fox "News" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, yet they are. There is no good way to deal with them. They are a right-wing mouthpiece, but they are listened to nonetheless, so what does a sane politician do? I don't know that this tactic is the right one, but at least it's a tactic. Better than rolling over and taking their attacks? This is a lose-lose situation, for sure.
#1 Posted by laura k, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 01:48 PM
An increasingly Nixonian White House is using the power of the presidency to attack a private news organization. What if the Bush administration pulled this shit with the NY Times or MSNBC? The cries and crocodiles tears of “dissent is patriotic” would be the word of the day.
So this is what it has come to? Is the editorial staff here really considering entertaining the idea of apologizing and even justifying a new 21st century master political enemies list for the Obama administration?
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 01:55 PM
Fox has yet to produce a news segment attacking Obama by relying on very sketchy documents, as CBS did, costing Mary Mapes (now cruising with the editors of The Nation) and Dan Rather their jobs after the blogosphere did some investigating of its own. Fox has not been caught rigging a fake explosion to justify an 'expose', as NBC has for a program co-hosted by NBC star Jane Pauley - most recently spotted campaigning for Obama. Fox's questioners at presidential debates have not approached the level of sarcasm toward a Democrat expressed by ABC's Carole Simpson toward Bush 41 in the 1992 campaign. Fox hasn't been taken to court for colluding with partisan political groups to try to 'entrap' a target, as ABC was in the Food Lion case. Fox has never produced anything quite as vicious as The New York Times did in its nasty and false coverage of the Duke/lacrosse racial hostilities of a few years back. For her contributions to the atmosphere of hate generated in Durham, Selena Roberts of The Times was offered a column at Sports Illustrated; err on the side of 'conservatism' in poor reporting, and you will be a pariah, but liberals are always forgiven and taken back in. (See the entry under 'plagiarism' that relate to media favorites such as Doris Kearns Goodwing and the late Molly Ivins; no 'conservative' writer would have been allowed to live down such offenses.) Fox has no political activism outside the studio to correspond to Katie Couric's marches with abortion-rights activists and attendance at People for the American Way fund-raisers.
These are examples that jump out at me, because some of them were criticized by other journalists - but not accepted by these journalists as metaphors for the reflexively urban-liberal worldview of mainstream editors and reporters. The evidence that convicts Fox of a right-leaning bias (perfectly obvious) is the same evidence that convicts almost all other 'big media' news organizations of 'liberal bias' in varying degrees. Fox has done a good job of portraying the rest of the news media as substantially in the tank for Obama, and this will give them more gleeful evidence that only Fox is skeptical of the administration. By contrast, Republican attacks on the press have been comprehensive.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:31 PM
Fox has yet to produce a news segment attacking Obama by relying on very sketchy documents, as CBS did, costing Mary Mapes (now cruising with the editors of The Nation) and Dan Rather their jobs after the blogosphere did some investigating of its own. Fox has not been caught rigging a fake explosion to justify an 'expose', as NBC has for a program co-hosted by NBC star Jane Pauley - most recently spotted campaigning for Obama. Fox's questioners at presidential debates have not approached the level of sarcasm toward a Democrat expressed by ABC's Carole Simpson toward Bush 41 in the 1992 campaign. Fox hasn't been taken to court for colluding with partisan political groups to try to 'entrap' a target, as ABC was in the Food Lion case. Fox has never produced anything quite as vicious as The New York Times did in its nasty and false coverage of the Duke/lacrosse racial hostilities of a few years back. For her contributions to the atmosphere of hate generated in Durham, Selena Roberts of The Times was offered a column at Sports Illustrated; err on the side of 'conservatism' in poor reporting, and you will be a pariah, but liberals are always forgiven and taken back in. (See the entry under 'plagiarism' that relate to media favorites such as Doris Kearns Goodwing and the late Molly Ivins; no 'conservative' writer would have been allowed to live down such offenses.) Fox has no political activism outside the studio to correspond to Katie Couric's marches with abortion-rights activists and attendance at People for the American Way fund-raisers.
These are examples that jump out at me, because some of them were criticized by other journalists - but not accepted by these journalists as metaphors for the reflexively urban-liberal worldview of mainstream editors and reporters. The evidence that convicts Fox of a right-leaning bias (perfectly obvious) is the same evidence that convicts almost all other 'big media' news organizations of 'liberal bias' in varying degrees. Fox has done a good job of portraying the rest of the news media as substantially in the tank for Obama, and this will give them more gleeful evidence that only Fox is skeptical of the administration. By contrast, Republican attacks on the press have been comprehensive.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:31 PM
Sorry about the duplication above. I also meant to add in the Carole Simpson remark that last year she came out of the closet to campaign for Hillary Clinton.
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:34 PM
Fox is the only news organizations that gives you the facts and Obama and his crew of crooks know it.That is why they are mad,Fox is not walking in lockstep,like CNN,NBC=Obama Channel,and Newyork times..etc.
#6 Posted by Vito, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 08:14 PM
The "attacks" by Fox consisted solely of shining a light on Obama admin. practices that were, at best, highly questionable. Van Jones as an avowed Communist and Truther; the use of Czars, and ACORN's seamy underside. These are all legitimate stories, the very essence of journalism.
Meanwhile we have CNN (the "real" news organization) "fact checking" an SNL skit on Obama, and running a segment on a kids choir singing a hagiographic and highly partisan song supporting Obama.
The fact that CJR would - even for a moment - think to side with a governmental targeting of a news organization is unbelievable. Are your partisan instincts so strong that they trump your belief in freedom of the press?
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 10:19 PM
FOX's promotion of the Iraq War, its unrelenting attacks against the administration, willingness to act as stenographers for right wing
talking points, and consistent intent to mislead viewers causes one
to reflect on its real purpose. The cable network astro-turfed the
ridiculous Tea Parties. If at times it inadverently confuses in a way
that appears to conservatives as left leaning it is only because it
temporarily abandons its right wing rhetoric for corporate propa-
ganda. It is not very smart for any public official to ignore FOX's
distortions, because it gives legitimacy to its point of view through
Pavlovian staggered repetition. It gives credibility to mendacity by
acting as if serious observers are fooled by the obvious manipula=
tions However, conservatives do accept FOX infotainment as fact.
Of course, Fox is not the only media to participate in misleading the
public. Misleading Americans has become a type of sport for some
reporter. The arrogance and disrespect for people is blatant and
pervasive as demonstrated by the nonsense it sells to viewers.
Only a fool continues to be civil to an organization that views him
with demonstrable contempt.
#8 Posted by gc_wall, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 03:55 AM
Fox news helps fund and promote tea-bagger events. Puts GOP talking points on as news. Gives kid-glove interviews to GOP guests but attacks Democrats with every distortion and sophistry it can muster. In most ways it acts as a propoganda directorate rather than a news organization. So yes, it ok by me if the President points this out.
And for the record, the Bush administration regularly attacked the New York Time and Washington Post.
#9 Posted by gbollinger, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 09:00 AM
That is why I love Fox news. They gives their news without kissing Obama administration. Just the simple thuth! You read other news as NBC and you know they will totally agree with Obama and company. Acai Berry
#10 Posted by AnnieRox, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 09:15 AM
To gbollinger, once again, the evidence you cite against Fox is fully applicable to the more liberal news outlets. This weekend's gay rights rally was given substantial play by the mainstream media, though their issues are not particularly popular with the public at large, and gay-rights organizations are heavily urban and hardly 'grass-roots' - the grass roots of lawns in West Hollywood, maybe. The MSM keeps these issues front and center on behalf of that movement. There are other activists groups which get the same privileges and play - environmentalists, for instance. (Political feminists used to be prominently featured by their friends in the MSM, but their concerns have gotten rather old, and Obama's victory over Clinton shows that liberals still give precedenc to racial over sexual guilt in their political psychology.) The prominence given liberal concerns by the MSM can hardly be driven by public interest, since research has repeatedly shown gay, environmentalist, etc., issues to have little traction with consumers and voters outside places like Malibu and Martha's Vineyard.
It's because the MSM is sensitive to urban-affluent Left talking points and features urban-affluent Left causes as 'news' that it gets a pass in your eyes, I'm guessing, while Fox's dissent looks prominent because it contrasts with the drab conformism of the MSM. I mean, without anchors, can you really tell an evening broadcast from CBS apart from one on ABC or NBC?
#11 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 12:25 PM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/Cackalacky/Fox.jpg
Enough said.
#12 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 01:02 PM
Hardrada:
BRILLIANT - talk about a picture being worth a thousand words....!
One link demolishes all of Mark Richard's smug blather.
#13 Posted by steveconga, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 01:33 PM
FOX's promotion of the Iraq War, its unrelenting attacks against the administration, willingness to act as stenographers for right wing
talking points, and consistent intent to mislead viewers causes one
to reflect on its real purpose. The cable network astro-turfed the
ridiculous Tea Parties. If at times it inadverently confuses in a way
that appears to conservatives as left leaning it is only because it
temporarily abandons its right wing rhetoric for corporate propa-
ganda. It is not very smart for any public official to ignore FOX's
distortions, because it gives legitimacy to its point of view through
Pavlovian staggered repetition. It gives credibility to mendacity by
acting as if serious observers are fooled by the obvious manipula=
tions However, conservatives do accept FOX infotainment as fact.
Of course, Fox is not the only media to participate in misleading the
public. Misleading Americans has become a type of sport for some
reporter. The arrogance and disrespect for people is blatant and
pervasive as demonstrated by the nonsense it sells to viewers.
Only a fool continues to be civil to an organization that views him
with demonstrable contempt.
#14 Posted by gc_wall, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 03:20 PM
@Mark Richard - I actually like the list you use to condemn the other media outlets, but this does nothing to justify Fox's behavior of continually regurgitating right wing and Republican friendly points of view, multiple "mistakes" of party during scandals and uproars (Mark Foley being the most prominent, but there are many), and providing voices for purveyors of nonsense and hate. The best example I can think of this last is Andy Martin on Hannity last fall.
The fact that all of the networks are, in fact, awful, does not mitigate the fact that Fox is especially awful. Rising to the top of a barrel of shit is not something to be proud of.
CJR should be concerned about journalistic integrity as a whole - to which Fox has done immeasurable damage. The fact that not many people, networks, organizations, etc. out there are doing a better job is, to me, a somewhat different issue.
#15 Posted by nick, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 03:24 PM
Instead of asking us the question, why doesn't CJR assign a team of reporters to look at this more closely. I thought that is what journalism reviews are supposed to do.
#16 Posted by Tony Davis, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 03:55 PM
I agree with Annie Rox, we want the "simple thuth [sic]!" However, Pundit TV isn't the best place to find what you're seeking. Sadly, the truth is far from simple to find.
#17 Posted by Berkeley-B, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 06:49 PM
When a person that feels Mao is the number 1 political philosophy states that any news organization is "bad", then it probably is "good".
Fox fills-in where the other news organizations refuse to do their job... watch the left AND the right. Whats so bad about that anyway? Journalism in the US is expected to be unbiased. Not reporting on "bad" things from the left is bad journalism from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, NPR, and virtually all the national-level print media. If they did even a barely passable job, Fox wouldn't exist.
#18 Posted by Bri, CJR on Thu 15 Oct 2009 at 09:05 PM
I find it amazing that people confuse "news" with commentary. Fox has news and they have commentary. They choose to have both sides as commentators-- Right and Left. The networks, CNN, MSNBC, etc also have commentators but they are only left wing. So Fox offers balance. Example from print-- NY Times has 12 commentators-- 11 are left wing.
Whenever anyone critiques Fox News, here on this board or anywhere else, they are critical of the politics of 50% of their commentators, thats all. Fox News is rated least biased by the truly nonpolitical media research organizations.
#19 Posted by Bri, CJR on Thu 15 Oct 2009 at 09:17 PM
@Bri: Yeah, "balance" and "criticism," like this:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/Cackalacky/Fox.jpg
Please, do the world a favor and shut the hell up, as in permanently, grab the big knife out of the kitchen drawer and do the right thing, like those failed Japanese businessmen.
#20 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 09:39 AM
Hardrada, c'mon. You're too good a person to be wishing people dead. Isn't that what your enemies do, all motivated by hate and such?
I'm always entertained by the 'responses' to my posts that call names instead of actually engaging the points. Stay classy there, Steveconga! Smug blather, wow. You really know how to hurt a guy. And one video from Fox refutes all my specific observations (facts you can actually look up, if you are really interested) about the laziness of criticism of the MSM for obvious political biases.
Nick, thanks for a more measured response. We don't really disagree. Fox and other news organizations should work hard to be credible to their consumers. In a related note, I see CNN is apologizing to Rush Limbaugh for retailing made-up nasty quotes in the media feeding frenzy over whether he should be allowed to help keep the fading Rams franchise in St. Louis. Good work there, liblabs.
#21 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 01:17 PM
Didn't Fox News accuse Barack HUSSIEN Obama of attending a madrassa?
Fox News is crap. They have no standards and their news operation is top down framed and controlled by champion republican ratf*cker, Roger Ailes.
Other news networks make journalistic mistakes because journalists are human and make mistakes. Fox makes misrepresentations and slurs based on the desired slant telegraphed by their managers.
With the possible exception of Shepard Smith, they are all under the editorial sway of nasty ideologues.
American TV news media has been unwatchable crap for 15 years, but Fox sets the bar. You get more informed reading the doodles off of bathroom stalls.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 10:04 PM
Speak for yourself Mark, my motivation is probably 65% rage, 35% hope.
#23 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Sat 17 Oct 2009 at 09:29 AM
"At the same time, Dunn has acknowledged that she has no beef with the network’s White House correspondent, that the President would likely appear on the network in the future, and that the White House’s press staff would continue to respond to queries from the network’s news staff."
The White House backed off this stance this morning
White House senior adviser David Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos today on ABC's "This Week": The only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming."
So the fighte extends to Major Garrett, not just Sean Hannity.
Source: http://news-cycle.blogspot.com/
#24 Posted by John, CJR on Sun 18 Oct 2009 at 03:37 PM
And so it should. When you have news producers whipping up tea bag crowds to make good tv, when you have your news division give time to known discredited theories such as the CRA subprime collapse and the polls show that the Fox audience is really misinformed on basic topics such as Iraq and the healthcare debate (I'd post the links but the spam filters won't let me), you should treat that media as it has defined itself, a tabloid for dittoheads. A televised version of the World Net Daily.
That doesn't mean you enact laws suppressing speech and refuse their broadcast licenses, ala Hugo Chavez, but it does mean you can delegitimize them to the extent they have delegitimized themselves. Obama doesn't have to treat the National Enquirer with the esteem of the New York Times, nor does he have to treat Fox News with anything but the distain they have displayed and earned. They are an embarrassment to journalism.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 18 Oct 2009 at 09:47 PM
Do you not remember the famous PIPA poll?
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
People who watch Fox News have more of their facts scrambled than anyone else.
Mark Richard might want to consider a few points about that 'Obama was indoctrinated as a child at a Wahabi madrassa' story.
1. It came from Insight Magazine, owned by the Moonies and with a considerably less than stellar reputation. YET they did zero fact-checking.
2. It sounded outlandish, didn't pass the 'smell test', yet they gleefully passed it on. Did you see the videos? They wrre so EXCITED to talk about it. Ooh! Ooh! another COVER-UP they were exposing. Pathetic.
2. This was not one (1) Fox 'commentator', but three (3) repeating the same lies: The Big Story, Hannity & Colmes, Fox and Friends. One right after another. Like dominoes.
3. It took them quite awhile before slowly stepping back from the story. Even Senior VP John Moody had to remind them rule one is to know what they're talking about (he's now gone from Fox).
http://obama.wikia.com/wiki/Muslim_and_madrassa_school_rumors
Does this happen with the 'real' news media? Of course not. Everyone makes mistakes, but Fox makes them a habit. They're PROUD of misleading people and passing along gossip as facts.
Can. You. Spot. The. Difference.
#26 Posted by Tom J, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 01:45 AM
I'll take the point about Obama and the madrassa story as a legitimate one. I believe it was originally discussed on "Fox and Friends", the counterpart to the morning shows such as "Today". I think Fox's gabsters specifically cited the source as "Insight" magazine, and recanted a few days later.
My only rejoinder would be that journalistically, this is still a very long way from the resources CBS put into the Bush/National Guard story which turned out to be founded on thin sourcing as well, and fabricated documents in the bargain. It's fair game to criticize the "Fox and Friends" crew for gabbing about Obama's schooling without checking the solidity of the story. It's an order of magnitude more significant for CBS to have its anchor host a segment on "60 Minutes" on a theme that had already been investigated every time that Bush had run for office, and to do so not on the basis of idle gossip, but on the basis of documents pulled together by a source knows to have an anti-Bush agenda. If Fox News had done a "serious" investigation of the Obama/madrassa story in prime-time, anchored by Brit Hume, with the full endorsement of its news operation, that would be more serious. By the same token, if Harry Smith on "The CBS Morning News" had made allegations based on the sketchy documents in the case, I don't think it would have as serious as what CBS did. By the standard Fox is held to, mainstream news organizations are guilty of rumor-mongering all the time; I believe the latest round of apologies has concerned made-up quotes used uncritically by CNN and other news sources against Limbaugh.
Once again, my contention is that Fox is just held to a higher standard of probity because of its pro-conservative editorial slant, while the other news organizations are in denial about the urban-Democratic framing and narrative of their conventional political coverage. I'm skeptical of Fox News for its political slant, but I break from some people by being skeptical of the MSM for the same reason. Does anyone except a true believer take The New York Times coverage of race/gender politics seriously, at face value? And these (a) cover a lot of ground in American politics, and (b) are the views of the paper that is still the assignment editor for the mainstream media?
To my friend and occasional sparring partner Hardrada, perhaps when posters and bloggers are motivated more by positive than negative political emotions, such as a genuine consumer desire for better and more accurately predictive journalism, instead of journalism that does not challenge their own views, these threads will be less likely to read like primal-scream therapy. I think generic get questioned and challenged much less than do generic conservatives and it shows up in news coverage in the way MSM outlets keep getting surprised by trends like sagging support for Obama's policies, the GOP trend in off-year elections, the revival of right-wing activism so soon after the 2008 elections, the ACORN story, the Van Jones story, the NEA story . . . it is a built-in distortion factor that conventional urban journalism is more likely to pick up the vibe of attitudes in the journalist's urban neighborhood than in what's going on in more Republican precincts.
#27 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 12:47 PM
FOX is an amazingly effective propaganda operation, and they really should be commended in this regard. What other media organizations cultivate and direct popular fear, working class resentment and racial/religious hatred so effectively? It seems only polite to recognize their accomplishments.
In addition to this, the actual information content of what they present approaches zero every day (the CNN standard), and still they are able turn legitimate popular grievances against the very entities that could address those same problems. Masterful!
It is important to keep in mind that while FOX is a comfortable home for Cheneys, Rovians, and neocons of every cowardly stripe, the NYTimes actually did the heavy lifting to get our most recent unnecessary military adventure off the ground.
So...congratulations all around!
#28 Posted by Jesus Avidus, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 02:15 PM
No, actually the national guard story was solid. It was reported long before the Dan Rather story and the questions raised were never resolved, nor were the documents false in the sense in their content as the original secretary has declared:
CBS got tricked into airing copies of real documents, the news producer who broke the Abu Grahib story got fired, and the blah blah blah of the american media talking heads propagated the perception that the Bush deserter story was entirely discredited. An awfully convenient result.
Meanwhile, fox gets to drone on about death panels, government take overs, propaganda in schools, every fake controversy under the sun and when someone calls them on it does anyone get fired? Is there any accountability? No. People like CJR, CNN, MSNBC defend Fox News's legitimacy.
Like anyone ever defended CBS, NBC, or any of the other networks when the rethuglicans accused them of being hostile.
No, it's Obama who is over reaching, not like when the Bush Administration was planting actual VNS government propaganda in the news, sending officials to media outlets to making threats about cutting them out, leaking information about reporters and opponents to Fox News and Drudge, co-opting the media's independent experts with the pentagon story, giving exclusive access to the president to Fox, paying pundits to advocate their policies, etc...
Fox has been an intimidation tool for republicans - you say something they don't like and suddenly you are on the TV - 24 7 with 100% negative coverage, which then leeches its way into the mainstream via Howard Kurtz with the Fox media frame. Not satisfied with that, now a days they send Jesse Waters to your house to call you a liar and filth on your way to the car and they expect you to apologize.
It's a farce. Nobody else pulls this crap to the level of Fox. They deserve a response.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 12:52 AM
Man, that last post made me nostalgic for the old days in 2002, when government overreach was unambiguous and things like torture and secret wiretaps on the press and citizens were the daily order of business.
Remember how the government used to deal with unfriendly press? When Bush 'accidentally' had the Al'Jazzera offices in Afghanistan and Iraq bombed and had to be talked out of 'accidentally' bombing the headquarters of the 'Al'Qeda press' in Qatar by his British allies?
Those were the days.
Funny. I don't recall anyone getting too upset about the delegitimization of Al'Jazzera, not to mention the accidental killing and arbitrary detention of their reporters. Maybe my memory is faulty.
Or maybe this Obama controversy is complete BS, unlike the ones involving Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the attempt to regulate Wall Street with a cushy pillow and a comfy chair.
This is why I love to read the Audit section of this site versus this kind of navel gazing story.
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 01:39 AM
this site dose not tell you any thing
#31 Posted by elijah, CJR on Tue 22 Jun 2010 at 12:43 AM