The Increasing Problem With the Misinformed
May 1, 2016 9:06 AM   Subscribe

“The rise of the misinformed is now the largest obstacle for success for journalists today (outside the concerns that relate to publishing). If people don't trust the news, you don't have a news business.” Thomas Baekdal writes a strategic analysis for media companies to earn their readers’ trust, looking at data from PolitiFact to understand how misinformation spreads and what journalists can do to stop it.
posted by Rangi (54 comments total) 36 users marked this as a favorite
 
The reason is that the rise of the misinformed is partly our own fault. We, the press, have allowed it to happen by focusing more on pageviews than actually positioning ourselves as the source of true information.

No, it's entirely your own fault. Who the fuck do you think is misinforming people?
posted by dersins at 9:18 AM on May 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


Have you ever read an article in the newspaper about a subject that you happen to be very knowledgeable, even specialized in? And it seems like they've totally missed the big picture, and gotten everything wrong?

Now think about every other article in the newspaper, that you're not a specialist in. Why would you trust any of that?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 9:18 AM on May 1, 2016 [121 favorites]


I have, and Buddha is exactly right.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:27 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Certainly even the experts in some fields are nothing of the sort.
posted by Burn_IT at 9:28 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The reason is that the rise of the misinformed is partly our own fault. We, the press, have allowed it to happen by focusing more on pageviews than actually positioning ourselves as the source of true information.

No, it's entirely your own fault. Who the fuck do you think is misinforming people?


I think that it would be nice if we could differentiate between different media outlets and think about their roles differently. Some firms are all about clickbait-production and care very little for the truth, and there are others that do a somewhat better job of trying to be as accurate and informative as they can.

Nevertheless, I think the author is correct to assert that the result of bad journalism affects all news outlets, not only those that have been most responsible for the problem. I have only anecdotal evidence for this position, but I find many people reading the (factually correct) first paragraph of a news story and then dismissing it offhand because information in that paragraph does not agree with their own understanding of the world.

Suggesting that "you have to stop using and reporting on people who have proven to be unreliable. We kind of have to cover the politicians because they are our elected representatives (regardless of how much they lie). But you don't have to cover the political associations or pundits." seems sound for news organizations that are genuinely trying to do good reporting, even if other organizations will screw it up royally.
posted by thegears at 9:29 AM on May 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Why would you trust any of that?

Cause then I'd have to completely trust real people, like myself. And lemme tell you, I can be a real dumb moron sometimes.
posted by FJT at 9:30 AM on May 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


> Fourthly, you have to stop using and reporting on people who have proven to be unreliable.

So, these days the existence of institutions that "have proven to be unreliable" and the degree of influence they have in setting the agenda is newsworthy in and of itself. If you want me to consider you a reliable source of news it's not enough to stop using them — you have to identify them and the role they're playing in a story and say when they are being untruthful.

Or, the way this works out in practice is I'm listening to a news story and some institution is is identified as having been "unreliable" and I start repeating "Say they lied. Say they lied. Say they lied. Say they lied. Say they lied.". That doesn't happen, I finish with "You didn't say it.", and change the channel or close the tab.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:31 AM on May 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Seems to be zero consideration being given to the idea that maybe, just maybe, journalists actually generally aren't trustworthy.

Stop relying on experts and start positioning the newspaper and journalists as the ones people turn to directly. It's not about having an opinion, it's about doing analysis and being known as someone who knows what they are talking about.

You, the newspaper and the journalists, have to be the experts.


I fuckin' laughed out loud. The journalist often has a low cunning, but overall is not particularly bright - are they even capable of being experts?

I laughed out loud some more when the solution is apparently to go to Vox dot Com and let Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias tell you what to think.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:41 AM on May 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm reminded of the rise of phones with cameras leading to an "increase" in police brutality and a "decrease" in UFO sightings.
posted by fullerine at 9:48 AM on May 1, 2016 [51 favorites]


The most important story I have seen in the last couple days is the Afghanistan Doctors Without Borders hospital attack and the "punishments" the Department of Death handed out to the perps. Our rulers intend that we not be informed. The Intercept had the best story and Greenwald left out what I feel is a critical datum. The Pentagon news conference where they told their story to the press was conducted on late Wednesday afternoon the day before Thanksgiving. That is when you release a story you want to have no legs.

The Joke of U.S. Justice and “Accountability” When They Bomb a Hospital
posted by bukvich at 9:54 AM on May 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I can think of two Australian online publications that I heartily supported (as in paid for subscriptions and read regularly) until they published some articles on topics I knew really well. And then I stopped because their coverage was so.fucking.wrong. as in factually wrong, stupidly wrong, that I couldn't trust anything else they were writing because if they got this wrong, how could I trust the rest?
But it feels like everything is like that now - the Guardian, once my bastion of decent news feels like it is full of clickbait bollocks and advertorial and I am left thinking 'what is there worth believing'? I guess there are a few podcasts that seem to be doing a good job of analysing where the media got it wrong, but in general it seems that everything is either an ad, or just misinformed. I don't want to be a tinfoil hat wearer, but it is getting hard not to be.
posted by Megami at 9:55 AM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Joke of U.S. Justice and “Accountability” When They Bomb a Hospital

You'd expect that one to be the time when some general would come up to the dipshit responsible and say "What the fuck did you do? Get out of my war and expect a court martial for this one".
posted by Talez at 10:01 AM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


My mind is returning to the New York Times openly wondering, several years ago, whether it was appropriate for them to point out when politicians were telling lies. I didn't immediately cancel my subscription but I didn't renew either and I still haven't.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 10:02 AM on May 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


The journalist often has a low cunning, but overall is not particularly bright - are they even capable of being experts?

Pretty sure any average journalist has a better general knowledge than you (outside of whatever your specific field of expertise may be). Unless you in fact spend your entire day following major current events for a profession?

Not saying they're always right, mind you.
posted by passengera34 at 10:03 AM on May 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


> Now think about every other article in the newspaper, that you're not a specialist in. Why would you trust any of that?

I think that depends on the newspaper or journalist in question. But you've set up this premise so people immediately think of an example that agrees with your argument. "Think about a time where an article got the facts about your area of expertise correct. Why wouldn't you trust that news organization over the others?"


> The journalist often has a low cunning, but overall is not particularly bright - are they even capable of being experts?

That's just plain nearsighted, close-minded, and offensive. Are you even capable of expert commentary on journalism?


For what it's worth, I appreciate this article for highlighting and attempting to address this problem reasonably. It's an obvious problem, but these kinds of sweeping generalization immediate reactions really show just how difficult dealing with the occasional chip-on-the-shoulder is going to be. There's no argument about the existence of journalists who aren't doing their jobs; that's who the article is targeted towards.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 10:15 AM on May 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Some firms are all about clickbait-production and care very little for the truth, and there are others that do a somewhat better job of trying to be as accurate and informative as they can.

A shining example of the latter: the New York Times' coverage of the run-up to the most recent war in Iraq.

Oh wait! Actually, that's a shining example of why people don't trust either variety of media. The accurate and informative places lie too, and with worse outcomes because they fool more people.
posted by mwhybark at 10:16 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I didn't hate the story, but the data analysis was anything but expert, fairly boring, and the idea that you can blind numbers while you work up "the story" to be free from bias is almost never applicable. Scientists don't blind stuff 99% of the time, no matter what you've read--blinding only makes sense if you know the exact question you want to ask. And as in science, the heart of journalism is finding out what the question is.

Also, he spends zero time on the impact of the real challenge, that people want to misinform themselves. It does not follow that trustworthy stories will lead to people trusting you. If you keep challenging their perceptions they will just go to someone who validates them and assume you are lying.

I fuckin' laughed out loud. The journalist often has a low cunning, but overall is not particularly bright - are they even capable of being experts?

Not especially charitable but also misunderstanding the gist I think.

Judith Miller is the classic case. She peddled falsehoods from "experts" advocating for war on Iraq and got things--including the big picture--disastrously wrong. But she denies she got anything wrong because, basically, she herself didn't invent stuff, and there's something to this with current norms. Change the expectation so that journalists' job is to understand and analyze and not just report.

This has its own set of problems but at least they are different problems.
posted by mark k at 10:20 AM on May 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


This seems like an appropriate place to mention the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, which BuddhaInABucket almost alluded to above.
posted by shponglespore at 10:23 AM on May 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I find many people reading the (factually correct) first paragraph of a news story and then dismissing it offhand because information in that paragraph does not agree with their own understanding of the world.

On the other hand, I can't count the number of times that the first paragraph of a story is technically correct but highly slanted, biased, or selective truth, while the important qualifications and context is tucked away in some later paragraph. If it's there at all.
posted by nom de poop at 10:24 AM on May 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Not in the article, and nowhere here, is there mention of the three most important words that define this entire discussion.

Those words are "public relations," and "access."

Once the PR pros realized the journalists weren't fighting for scoops, but access, the game changed. This occurred shortly after Watergate. All the misinformation you see -- e.g. Judith Miller -- is the result of journalists fighting for and hustling to maintain access, the real currency of the realm. Fuck the news. That's what pool reporters are for. No, your sources are behind the PR walls. You need to do whatever it takes to maintain access, to get what the PR pros won't give to the pool. They can't control the pool. But they can control you. In return for your fawning acquiescence, you get access.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:31 AM on May 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


Pretty sure any average journalist has a better general knowledge than you (outside of whatever your specific field of expertise may be). Unless you in fact spend your entire day following major current events for a profession?

While it may be true that the average journalist has a better general knowledge than me, I don't see any evidence for that in their product. There are exceptions, but for the most part, news reporting is pretty ignorant.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:33 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


When we decide that no journalist, no researcher, no scholar and no author ever tells the truth, then the NYT, the journal Science and the Guardian are no more reliable than Alex Jones, antivaxers and Glen Beck. This is manifestly not the case.

So, no, I don't think we should decide that truth is impossible because everyone lies all the time. Yes, there is bullshit and spin, and there's always been bullshit and spin. By definition, there's a truth underneath the bullshit and spin. The problem is that the bullshit and spin is defended by phalanxes of lawyers -- which is why news organizations don't say outright that someone lied, or that someone is criminal. And lies are also policed, as Cool Papa Bell says, by 'access'.

Time and money are also factors: lots of organizations just pick stuff up off the web, because their reporters are expected to turn a story around in less than an hour. The cheaper the organization the worse the reporting, which probably explains why The Young Turks often just seem to be reading shit from Buzzfeed in front of a bluescreen.
posted by jrochest at 10:37 AM on May 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


As a former journalist, I concur that the average journalist is as intelligent and informed as the average accountant, the average plumber, the average schoolteacher, etc, etc. There's no magic there.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:37 AM on May 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


They frustrating thing is that the facts are already out there, they're just ignored.
Look at Hosman Square, something everyone local "knew about" but the press coverage was invisible for years.
posted by fullerine at 10:43 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"In my country (Denmark), the number of people arrested for administrative reasons (like the police wanting to clear an area like in Ferguson) has gone up by 500% in the past five years alone."
The link given in support of that easily-checked "fact" goes to a Danish newspaper which claims that the number has gone up by roughly 330% over ten years. Exactly how much this should affect the "truthiness" score of this analysis is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by sfenders at 11:02 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> ...you have to stop using and reporting on people who have proven to be unreliable

> Specifically with data from PolitiFact.

Bit of a conflict here.
posted by HillbillyInBC at 11:40 AM on May 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


"In my country (Denmark), the number of people arrested for administrative reasons (like the police wanting to clear an area like in Ferguson) has gone up by 500% in the past five years alone."

This stat sounds awesome but says says exactly nothing. What was the number before this uptick? How is this increase relative to overall population? Because...

Population of New York City: 8.4 million
Population of Denmark: 5.6 million

I bet the arrests in Denmark could increase by a handful of incidents and you'd have a 500% uptick. Oh, my stars and garters...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:57 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> ...you have to stop using and reporting on people who have proven to be unreliable

> Specifically with data from PolitiFact.

Bit of a conflict here.


Could we not have clickbait-y reactions to articles that are looking for ways to address the problem of clickbait? If there are problems with PolitiFact being used for this particular analysis or if there's a better data source to be used, I'd honestly love to hear about it, since I would learn a lot from a comment saying that.

Hope this part isn't to MeTa: There are a bunch of comments in this thread that read to me to be basically "This guy is wrong and anyone who doesn't see that is a rube." Those don't strike me as helping a good discussion or making MeFi a better place. There are also some excellent comment analyzing the piece and even critiquing it, but with new insights and information I hadn't seen before. It would make me happy if there weren't quite so much outragefilter in short, non-informative comments here

</rant>
posted by thegears at 12:09 PM on May 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


From time to time I get interviewed about land use matters. As someone who believes in the fourth estate, I used to welcome all opportunities to interact with journalists. But I've been burned far too many times by reporters who aren't paying attention at best and are fomenting controversy at worst. Sometimes it's comical, e.g, I've said something like "We're trying very hard to reach out to people who believe [ludicrous, paranoid interpretation of events] to understand their concerns and blah blah blah" and seen it reported as "When asked about the project, Carmicha said '[ludicrous, paranoid interpretation of events].'" It's made me overly cautious and, in a sense, less forthright. I now prefer television and radio to print, even though they are fundamentally less nuanced media relative to my specialty area, because a gotcha moment is less likely. It's sad.
posted by carmicha at 12:30 PM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Have you ever read an article in the newspaper about a subject that you happen to be very knowledgeable, even specialized in?

Yes: research developments in math. And yes, the journalists often make mistakes. But I also find that they try to get the story right, and that the more time I and people like me are willing to spend talking to them, the better the stories end up.
posted by escabeche at 12:35 PM on May 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well, if they are relying on PolitiFact for their data that is a problem. It doesn't mean that everything that they said is bunk but it sure doesn't help their credibility imo.
posted by futz at 12:36 PM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think he really put his finger on something when he said, in essence, that news outlets can't BOTH wind up people up with rumour and exaggeration and those sketchy first reports, AND be sober analysts, and expect to retain trust.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:36 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The fact that PolitiFact even exists is kind of shocking.

In a sane world, an outfit that fact-checks public figures would be called "a newspaper."
posted by schmod at 12:39 PM on May 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


Could we not have clickbait-y reactions to articles that are looking for ways to address the problem of clickbait? If there are problems with PolitiFact being used for this particular analysis or if there's a better data source to be used, I'd honestly love to hear about it, since I would learn a lot from a comment saying that.

Glib is one thing, clickbait is another. It's at least weird, if not disingenuous, for the author not to point the flashlight at their own story's foundation. Problems with Politifact are significant enough to make up the majority of their Wikipedia page, should a journalist not account for this?
posted by rhizome at 12:57 PM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


They frustrating thing is that the facts are already out there, they're just ignored.
Look at Hosman Square, something everyone local "knew about" but the press coverage was invisible for years.


Well, so you say, but why should I trust what you say is true? Present me with your sources- but wait, why should I believe they are telling the truth? Prove to me that your sources are presenting complete, unvarnished truth.

You can't.

That's why the end result of this process inevitably will be people deciding on their worldview, and then ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Because in the absence of trustworthy information, just making up a good story is the only reasonable thing to do.
posted by happyroach at 1:02 PM on May 1, 2016


I'll just leave this post from Democracy Now here

People have become the media. Why would we trust something we don't own, when we have much better options?
posted by eustatic at 1:08 PM on May 1, 2016


I got in a facebook fight with someone (I know, I know), I don't even remember what about, and he insisted Obama had done $TheThing and I said, "Whoa, hold up there, that was the Republican Congress under GW Bush, before Obama was even in office." He was like, "Republicans would NEVER vote for that, what's your evidence?" So I pulled up the the relevant bit of the Congressional Reporter, and the Federal Code, and the bill itself with sponsors and voters listed, and he was like, "I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WANT ME TO CONSIDER THOSE TRUSTWORTHY, ANYONE CAN CLAIM ANYTHING."

I was like, Whoa, dude, when you refuse to even accept the Congressional Reporter or the text of the bills themselves with the roll call listed, I honestly don't know where we go from here.

He wasn't even a notably crazy person, he was pretty level-headed. But he just -- absolutely zero clue how to source facts or evaluate sources, and he's been having these narratives reinforced for so long of how All Bad Things come from Obama, and how no media is trustworthy unless it already agrees with you, that there's nowhere to go. You can't really fight that when there is literally no report of reality that will convince them.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:13 PM on May 1, 2016 [48 favorites]


it's interesting that he never mentions

- who owns the media
- who advertises in the media, paying the bills
- what gets left out by the media and is never even covered

a great deal of the problem has to do with that
posted by pyramid termite at 1:15 PM on May 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's at least weird, if not disingenuous, for the author not to point the flashlight at their own story's foundation.

Agreed.

Problems with Politifact are significant enough to make up the majority of their Wikipedia page, should a journalist not account for this?

Probably not a bad idea, although I do think it's a poor characterization to call most of that page "problems" and not "criticisms" or "controversies"; most of that appears to my eyes to be politicians complaining (whether justified or not) about their statements being ranked as untrue.

It's interesting that there are few pundits/"experts" who are complaining, suggesting that their job is less dependent on them telling the truth than politicians. That does seem to bolster the author's point.
posted by thegears at 1:20 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Journalism has become such an exercise in stenography. This example where Marc Ambinder (a respected journalist for the Atlantic) and Politico's vaunted newsletter both get caught manufacturing stories to fit press releases, expressly in exchange for access, tells the tale pretty well. At this point, even the most 'respected' news outlets should be read with a grain of salt.

Increasingly centralized ownership of media by giant multinational corporations has become a huge problem. Just six conglomerates control 90% of the media we read: GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. That's down from 50 corporations in 1980. The people who own some of these media outlets make so much money on their other businesses that they can increasingly look at their media holdings as a marketing arm - it doesn't even matter if they lose money on the media outlet itself because it pays for itself by running propaganda to support their other ventures.

Look at Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post. Bezos paid $250 million for the Washington Post in 2013. That seems like a lot of money! But it's pocket change to Bezos, whose stake in Uber alone can be valued at around $1.5 billion - six times what he paid for the Post. Now, the WaPo doesn't have to run "Uber is great!!!" stories constantly for this to pay off. I'm sure his interests aren't explicitly represented in editorial conversations. But people know who they work for, these interests are communicated through culture and pressure, not explicit quid-pro-quo situations, and all WaPo has to do is continue to run friendly stories about the sharing economy and "breaking down barriers" to disrupt old industries for the investment to be worth it to Bezos (not to mention any other issues with their 'subtle' pro-capitalist bent). That is a massive problem, not least because losing readership or credibility with normal people doesn't even matter much to the Post at that point - he's still able to influence the Beltway folks who will still read WaPo, which is all he really needs to care about. Arianna Huffington just put herself into a similar situation, also involving Uber (ugh).
posted by dialetheia at 1:33 PM on May 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


Great point, dialetheia: look how often Bezos and WaPo are main or top links on Drudge Report these days.
posted by resurrexit at 1:56 PM on May 1, 2016


Have you ever read an article in the newspaper about a subject that you happen to be very knowledgeable, even specialized in? And it seems like they've totally missed the big picture, and gotten everything wrong?

I observed that when I was in college, FORTY YEARS AGO, and further research found examples going back several more decades. Misinformation is totally nothing new. Neither is purposeful DISinformation, but the way that the intentional misleading seems to be getting more effective is a current trend. But then, The Media is much more divided (or fragmented) these days, giving different people more different 'reliable sources' than ever before. The Internet gives every person their own personal reality.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:06 PM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


(Obviously I meant the Congressional Record above and am losing my mind.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:10 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can't really fight that when there is literally no report of reality that will convince them.

Yeah, having reacquainted myself with the concept of the Backfire Effect I no longer even bother to argue with that sort of person, especially if they're a friend. There's no point.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:23 PM on May 1, 2016


I was recently talking to a friend, who is pretty intelligent, and she confided that she wasn't sure what to think about the neo-flat earther stuff that's been going around lately. Basically the Gish Gallop was working on her as designed; she explicitly said that seeing how many arguments they have makes them seem to her that they have a serious case. It's dispiriting. Has the educational system done nothing at all to help people distinguish bogosity? It seems that all you have to do is make some authoritative sounding but utterly false claim that observable phenomena would be impossible if an "official" story were true, and millions of people will believe you....
posted by thelonius at 5:43 PM on May 1, 2016


BuddhaInABucket... I worked at Apple throughout the '80's and Apple was in the press all the time. And the majority of the time it was patently wrong. Back then I thought if they can't get this right how can I expect them to get anything else right. There has not been anything since to change that perspective.
posted by njohnson23 at 6:06 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


There is an antidote to the Backfire Effect which sometimes actually works, when we're talking about non-fringe or conspiratorial interlocutors. If you maintain your calm and remain respectful of the person you are talking to, willing to engage with their points as if they were valid (or indeed recognizing that some of them are), even if you fail to convince them at once [which is unlikely to say the least], you will be initiating *doubt*, or at least you would acquaint the other person with your perspective, in a non-manichean way. In the process it might turn out, if the other person is not an idiot, that you too would actually learn a thing or two about the other side of the debate. Or understand the root of your disagreement.
[But most internet "debates" are really not about convincing the other person. They are about convincing the unconvinced who might be reading your discussion]
posted by talos at 2:07 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


And the very next day on MiFi (not to whomp on robocop specifically) Big Foot in the news!
posted by sammyo at 5:25 AM on May 2, 2016


(my bad, historical post)
posted by sammyo at 5:27 AM on May 2, 2016


I wish Mark Twain were still alive. He would have so many witty and insightful things to say about our current state of affairs.
posted by pjsky at 7:26 AM on May 2, 2016


The fact that PolitiFact even exists is kind of shocking. In a sane world, an outfit that fact-checks public figures would be called "a newspaper."

You're joking, right?

By the way, for all the newspaper bashing I read on Metafilter, it's striking how often those very devils get linked on these pages.
posted by sixpack at 8:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> [But most internet "debates" are really not about convincing the other person. They are about convincing the unconvinced who might be reading your discussion]

I think you're an optimist. They strike me to be about signaling one's membership in a group.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:01 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Baseless accusations of in-group signaling seem to be 2016's hottest thought-terminating cliché. Rather than engage with someone's arguments, just assume away their sincerity and accuse them of seeking cookies.

But what if telling other people they're just signaling their membership in a group is itself an act of signaling one's own membership in the group that disapproves of others signaling their membership in a group? Wheels within wheels, man.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hmm, I've been thinking that for years; I didn't know there was a group of us. Where do I get the t-shirt?

(P.S. Just to note that you've always struck me as someone who's actually trying to have an honest discussion, tonycpsu. I think you're one of the rare ones.)
posted by benito.strauss at 10:27 AM on May 2, 2016


« Older Obama Out   |   The Most Enthusiastic Dads Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments