I don't know who's supposed to be influenced by this:
As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.Please, don't go. I get that they're saying that. But I don't get the argument why we should stay. I see a promise to keep doing something they haven't been doing. Or... a dishonest claim about what has been done and a promise to continue dishonestly. There's no confession of bias, no admission of any need to do better.
We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.
Striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives... what? Does it depend on the meaning of "striving"?
ADDED: As you can see, I didn't consider what the NYT wrote to be anything close to an apology, but Donald Trump characterized it as an apology in this tweet:
The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it?
Posts
120 comments:
It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.
After eight years of Obama & after the coverage of the Clinton campaign!
Oh, you lying bastards!
They could start by doing reporting that was critical of Pres. Obama and his IRS and DOJ. Or is that old news?
Striving like glancing over the other point of view while feeling annoyed and discarding that point of view immediately.
Striving like the strongman act where the man appears to strain while lifting barbell made out of styrofoam.
There's no confession of bias, no admission of any need to do better.
Well it worked for the Clintons.....
"That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you."
Hey, their readers believe this crap. My next-door neighbors (who are good people) are NYT readers. They'll eat this up.
Impartially! Fairness! It is to laugh.
NYT: All the news that's fit to ignore, distort, or lie about.
@Gahrie: "Well it worked for the Clintons....." Until it didn't. Ha.
"They could start by doing reporting that was critical of Pres. Obama and his IRS and DOJ."
Yeah, no kidding.
"Please, don't go. I get that they're saying that. But I don't get the argument why we should stay."
I'm not sure what motivated this plea. Can there really be many readers left who are not true believers?
Of course it goes without saying that they only mean to "understand and reflect" all the political views that aren't utterly deplorable.
Unless they fire their entire staff of reporters and opinion writers, it means nothing.
They're reassuring their readers that they'll keep telling them what they want to hear. The NYT probably thinks that this was a fluke and if they believe hard enough next time, their wish will come true.
I think several mainstream media entities will find their brands and reputations are irrevocably tarnished.
My personal theory is that many of these outlets and their reporters truly, truly (not just metaphorically) saw Trump as the next Hitler, which mostly speaks to their profound lack of knowledge about, you know, actual history, not to mention Trump himself. They then cast themselves in the role of the brave, noble opponents who sought to stop Hitler at any cost. What's the hoariest time travel cliche? Go back in time and kill Hitler. (Strangely, never Mao or Stalin, who each killed far more people.) It was tremendous wish-fulfillment combined with utter justification of any means.
They don't seem to realize that they are unwittingly making the argument that all future presidents hereafter should be straight white Republican males, because that's the only time the NYT takes it's Constitutional role seriously, and casts a critical eye upon the officeholder.
I recommend checking out the comments at the Letter to Readers -- "Readers' Picks".
"What's the hoariest time travel cliche? Go back in time and kill Hitler."
Never works.
Wait 'til they say something snarky about the Donald. It'll be fun to see him go after the Times. Can you spell Bully Pulpit?
Wait 'til they say something snarky about the Donald. It'll be fun to see him go after the Times. Can you spell Bully Pulpit?
It seems they're finally looking at why their profits are collapsing along with their readership and influence. In effect, they're saying, "Yeah, we've been lying for a long time and have alienated half of the country. We promise not to do that any more. Trust us, you racist morons."
"I recommend checking out the comments at the Letter to Readers -- "Readers' Picks"."
I don't think you can if you're not a subscriber.
I got an on-line solicitation from the NYT to buy their rag so I could get their oh-so great post-election coverage.
I'm sure my response fell on electronically deaf ears, but I said more than,"No thank you."
in watching the last Trump rallies prior to the election, my sense was that the media disgust - a la chanting CNN Sucks, and even Trump asking the cameras to pan the huge crowd - had become a new basic embed, as much a standard issue as Building a Wall. To me, this was very novel (well after 8 years of the opposite I shouldn't be so surprised). I was not so astonished at Trump being able to pull the election off, but am somewhat more surprised at how totally blind the media seems to be, and also how deep they are in their rut when calling for various things Trump should now do... various prescriptions. But for them, it's really physician heal thyself.
We did nothing wrong, and we promise we won't do it again.
Thus showing why it is better ultimately to have Trump than Clinton. The Press will do its job with Trump while they would have facilitated Clinton's corruption.
In other words they plan to keep on
"Covering the news...with a pillow...until it stops moving."
Paddy O your point The Press will do its job with Trump while they would have facilitated Clinton's corruption was the first on my list in deciding who to vote against. Followed by the Congress might impeach, try and remove Trump but never Clinton.
Time to stop visiting the New York Times website.
The same independence, which is to say none at all..
The NYT like the rest of them simply does what their owners want them to do. This is not complicated. Who pays the piper calls the tune.
None of them can survive as ordinary businesses anymore, they all live on subsidies, direct or indirect. They are kept as political assets and everything they publish is in one way or another a part of an engineered messaging program.
Nothing there is independently conceived or the work of an individual. Their sole purpose is political manipulation.
Anyone with a beef with the NYT has a beef with its owners, those people providing the subsidies. Mr. Carlos Slim for instance, or whoever he himself is a front for.
We always knew they'd suddenly rediscover 'journalism' when it was a Republican in office. They will be vicious attack dogs now, and will call it 'unbiased' reporting, 'speaking truth to power'. They haven't changed.
They are responsible for the people cowering in fear, and marching in the streets burning cars and smashing windows.
Whoever it was above who said they can start by some honest reporting about Obama, the IRS, Benghazi, and the wikileaks, Project Veritas and DNCleaks revelations, starting NOW... they have a little over a month to show that they can do it.
Don't hold your breath.
I'm going to look back on this as a fun week, days of wine and schadenfreude.
"I'm not sure what motivated this plea. Can there really be many readers left who are not true believers?"
No, but even the looniest of the Left demand the self-delusion that they're part of the "reality based" community. The Times isn't trying to convince conservatives here.
What a laugh. Does a single commenter on this site subscribe to the NYT? (I don't.)
Journalistic ethics do not apply. That's what many in the media were saying throughout the election. Reporting fully, accurately and without bias -- all these were to be sacrificed to serve the greater good of defeating the evil of anything opposed to the progressive agenda, which specifically was Trump, but we all know applies to countless others.
Understanding NYT readership is always a challenge. Do they really believe all the BS? Do they not believe the BS, but think everyone else (that matters) does? Or do they just read it because the all the other media copies it, and lets it set the agenda for the whole country?
Has anyone heard from grackle since the election? He was so often a glimmer of hope for Trump, especially early on.
Hopefully, after this election even the dumbest of the dumb will realize the NYT, the WaPo and most the MSM are nothing more then unpaid members of the DNC.
Understanding NYT readership is always a challenge. Do they really believe all the BS? Do they not believe the BS, but think everyone else (that matters) does? Or do they just read it because the all the other media copies it, and lets it set the agenda for the whole country?
I will give them credit for showing that Trump was winning while the TV news stations were still in denial.
:Does a single commenter on this site subscribe to the NYT? (I don't.)"
I subscribe to the Chicago Tribune, which is almost as bad. I do it for local news and to try to keep up with the murders,
I have to draw the line somewhere.
That's one psyop campaign that failed, and exposed its agents to public scrutiny.
Americans united. A little more than before. Perhaps coalescing.
Thanks, NYT. Your professional ethics were integral.
I guess Fox came across balanced, and, in that respect, fair. Trump's candidacy brought out the scalpels from all directions.
"They could start by doing reporting that was critical of Pres. Obama and his IRS and DOJ."
And EPA and VA and ATF and BLM and FBI and ?
Meade:
The reader's picks are hilarious. They are true believers. Bernie Sanders and more socialism, not that sellout Clinton's big government prescription, are the only answers.
I demand you apologize for directing me to macroaggress those readers with my mind-thought-brain-waves.
Do they really believe all the BS?
They believe it because they want to believe it. They believe it because they have not just a reckless disregard for the truth, but a disregard for the very idea of truth. They believe it because they believe the ends justify the means. They believe it because if they say it, it is, period.
They believe it because they are a bunch of sheep, they are a bunch of slaves held in bondage to their ideology. They believe it because to believe otherwise would be thought-crime.
They believe it because they perpetually live in 1984 --
"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink."
You must look at the letter as a typical Times subscriber (or reader, anyway) looks at it. Conservatives are not the intended audience.
People who subscribe to the Times to read its political coverage are already in the bag. What the publishers need to do is stroke these unfortunate people. The Times publishers need to explain to them that they were always really, really smart for reading the political coverage of the times, that reading he Times political coverage showed the world that they were smart, and that in the future, the times political coverage was going to get even smarter, and this means that they will be even smarter, and will be seen as being even smarter, for keeping up that subscription.
Full price for a NY Times subscription is around $500/year.
"Can there really be many readers left who are not true believers?"
Our host obviously reads them regularly and has quoted them quite a bit over the years. You shouldn't do that if you care about truth. Maybe she just noticed.
"You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team..."
as we did when George W. Bush was President.
Everything old is new again.
I've installed the Blacklist extension to Chrome, which keeps me from ever having to view the paywall of the NYT. Timesaver.
Too late.
All you have to do to get through the Times' paywall is use an incognito browser window.
It's not rocket science, people.
Don't go away mad................just go away.
That is a mea culpa by the NYT's standards. It is an admission they usually do better.
What it is not, is a change in stance. The NYT will still always speak for a Caste of educated liberals who KNOW they are superior, in every way, to the great fly over areas.
They are still the Martha Stewart of Newspapers. And that crude Queens kid is going to be destroyed, unless Bannon and Britebart help him win the next war too.
PB said
Unless they fire their entire staff of reporters and opinion writers, it means nothing.
You left out the publisher the rot starts from the head.
START by returning Duranty's Pulitzer Price and apologizing for coddling foreign tyrants.
Clean that plate first.
we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives
I'm not certain but if you are going to rededicate yourself to something doesn't that mean there must have been a time when you first dedicated yourself to that thing?
An expression about horses and barn doors comes to mind. Another one is about being a buck short and a day late.
"We weren't honest before, but those days are over, and that's no lie. Neither is that. Or that. Believe us. We mean well!"
If this were about singular people in a relationship, you'd tell the listener to dump the speaker.
You have to prove it on tandem to make the "rededication" stick.
At the least Editor Dean Baquet should resign or be fired. But then Pinch Sulzberger would have to go too and his family still controls the NewYork Times.
The Times coverage of Bernie Sanders was non-existent. At least Trump was covered even in only to spread the most negative take possible on Trump.
When the NYT has lost Ann Althouse, it's lost America.
Except New York City and DC. And Massachusetts. And probably Vermont.
We're coming for The New Yorker next!
- the Althouse Commentariat
Probably the NYT is saying that its people will investigate the hell out of Trump and work to impeach him. They think they can. It's just like what happened in Wisconsin when Walker was elected and brought in Act 10 - the liberals simply could accept the verdict of the people. They put us through a recall; it just made Walker stronger but they didn't know that would happen. Same with this election of Trump - the liberals are still in the bubble, they still think they can repeal what they don't like rather than learn something. And the NYT is signalling: "we're with you. We hate flyover ever more. Flyover shouldn't have the vote. We'll do a Nixon on Trump." Only - flyover will not believe a word they hear from NYT. And - the NYT is still misunderestimating Trump.
... the liberals simply could NOT accept the verdict of the people.
I suspect that unleashing the DOJ on Carlos Slim and others in that shadowy lot of NYT owners may bring a change of heart.
I cancelled my New Yorker subscription about 6 months ago.
Ha ha aha ha ha ha ha ha; what a load of untrustworthy crap.
So nothing changes.
Democrats - get them elected and cover for them thru each scandal.
Republicans - suddenly proclaim you're journalists and go after with a fervor.
Same as it ever was. Are they, too, being funded by activist billionaires?
Carlos Slim now owns a rag read by smug indulgent losers who only know self pity.
buwaya puti said...
I suspect that unleashing the DOJ on Carlos Slim and others in that shadowy lot of NYT owners may bring a change of heart.
For the win.
I don't get the obsession people on the right have with the New York Times, it's based in New York so it will naturally to a degree reflect the coastal position on politics. If it is as hopelessly bias you it is then why can't you stop reading. I don't watch Fox News, yet most of you still read NYT proving they do a good job.
My wife and I lived in New York for 20 years, New Jersey for another 8 and I worked out of New York City for over thirty years. The NYT is a business. They know their customers. If they ever begin unbiased reporting they'll lose 75% of what's left of their readers. It ain't gonna happen.
Amanda said...
I don't get the obsession people on the right have with the New York Times
Hello? It is the topic of the post.
buwaya puti said...
I suspect that unleashing the DOJ on Carlos Slim and others in that shadowy lot of NYT owners may bring a change of heart.
Carlos Slim is not Mexican. His ancestry is Lebanese. He's worth about 50 billion $ according to the Wikipedia, and lives in a country with one third the population of the US, with the average Mexican income about 1/4 of the income of the average American. Mexico has, BTW, more income inequality than the US (measured by Gini coefficient).
Excellent op-ed from Nicholas Kristof
Kudos! Late to the party but glad you made it.
What a laugh. Does a single commenter on this site subscribe to the NYT? (I don't.)
I look at whatever's above the fold while I'm waiting for my chai tea latte. Does that count?
> Striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives... what? Does it depend on the meaning of "striving"?
"Endeavor to persevere."
striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives
What does "always" attach to?
It's a floating always.
The New York Times became completely partisan during the first Clinton scandals. At first they were pretty hard on Bill, but then they started to lose readership in NYC, and they backed off and began defending him. That was the failure of nerve that ruined the paper.
If it is as hopelessly bias you it is then why can't you stop reading. I don't watch Fox News, yet most of you still read NYT proving they do a good job. - Amanda
It drives the agenda of most of the other news outlets in the United States. So, like Pravda used to be for the Russians, it is interesting for that reason, and can be read between the lines.
Not to mention, it seeing the stuff they refuse to cover is good for a laugh, but if all you read is the NYT and the WaPo, you have no idea what they don't cover, or if you run into some story here in a thread that wasn't in those papers, you don't believe it. So you think they cover all of the real news.
I see the Washington Post describes Trump's choices as a "clash of visions". Does anyone remember Obama's choices described as a "team of rivals" ala Lincoln's cabinet?
Like Hillary, the New York Times wishes they had their credibility back.
MoDo must have gotten a kick out of that letter.
"There's no confession of bias, no admission of any need to do better."
That's a feature. Not a bug.
I pondered the question in your post overnight, and my conclusion was that this was written for internal NYT morale purposes rather than reader morale purposes. It's the party line. It's what you say at parties when people tear into the NYT.
Stupid, because everyone knows that they won't simply reprint WH press releases in a Trump admin the way they were in the Obama admin.
And stupid, because it doesn't address reader concerns, but rather reinforces the impression of insularity. There's nothing worse than self-congratulatory navel-gazing - this is more like a "daily affirmation" comedy skit than anything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ldAQ6Rh5ZI
Actually, no change at all. If, as I sincerely hope, the Trump administration refuses to feed them stories and they are faced with the prospect of doing journalism, their only sources will be the same as they've been. The only change will be the "pivot to Warren."
Agree with MaxedOutMamma @6:33AM. Remember when the mainstream media line was that they failed us in the lead up to the Iraq war because they didn't "vet the evidence enough?" What silliness. They aren't the intelligence community. They are panderers of left wing ideology and purveyors of gossip, pure and simple. They've so much lost their way it's doubtful they will ever find their way back.
The Times can get some credibility back by reporting honestly on who the rioters are, who's paying them and why.....
An insincere Mea Culpa consistent with their biased reporting of the last 40 years. I am not persuaded.
My first thought exactly, @Dennis Jacobson. Odds that will happen?
How about the new twist on the Serenity Prayer, assigned to Maya Angelou but I've not spent time to track it down.
"...and to change the things I can't accept!"
My addition - by any means necessary!
Saint Croix - wow.
"Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. *But that doesn’t explain why the Clintons, who are actual money-grubbers, are given a pass by these same liberals.*"
*fixed*
This blog has officially become a "preaching to the choir" forum. Finding the rare opposing viewpoint is like a game of Finding Waldo.
You are welcome to explain to the class why pro-leftist media bias is a good thing.
Mark said...
Journalistic ethics do not apply. That's what many in the media were saying throughout the election. Reporting fully, accurately and without bias -- all these were to be sacrificed to serve the greater good of defeating the evil of anything opposed to the progressive agenda, which specifically was Trump, but we all know applies to countless others.
Hearing a journalist talk about ethics rings about as true as hearing a worn out prostitute talk about virginity.
I think they and the WSJ are the best papers in the country and the vast majority of the time they do a very good job of separating news from opinion. But one can't really have an intelligent conversation on the issue if you never read the paper.
Where do you go to get unbiased news?
Satan does not change. Why should his newspaper?
Excellent op-ed from Nicholas Kristof
Agreed. A problem that Universities face -- if they've gone all-in for Liberal Viewpoints -- is that State Legislatures aren't all-in for Liberal Viewpoints.
The comments on the articles are wonderful examples of the lack of self-awareness: It's not that conservatives aren't bright; it's that, for the most part, they are narrow-minded and are sure they have the right answers.
Carlos Slim - the 'e' is /silent/ invisible.
How do you all explain the fact that the NYT broke the Hillary-private-server story? News editors out sick that day?
Does it depend on the meaning of "striving"?
Or perhaps it depends on the meaning of "was."
One might think there is a niche for straight politically unbiased news.
"I can't promise I'll try. But I'll try to try."
--Bart Simpson
Steve Uhr @8:01,
That a point I've been wanting to make for some time, but not in the way I think you mean. First, they didn't break the story, they reported it.
But the main point is that they were hard on Hillary until they weren't. In effect, they were getting it out of the way so that it would be standard issue "old news" by the time the campaign started up in earnest. The problem for them is that the story kept percolating and refused to die down on schedule. Isn't it funny how they didn't stick with it over time.
See also how Trump wasn't a klansman bigot nazi until he had a serious shot at the nomination. The NYT doesn't get credit for playing a situational reporting game.
Also funny how for some, reporting a story instead of spiking it becomes breaking the story.
My local newspaper's coverage of national and international affairs is taken straight from two sources: the Associated Press, and the New York Times. Generally speaking, I'm aware enough to know that I can skip it without having missed anything and that's exactly what I do; but, as difficult as it is to believe, there are people out there for whom those NYT articles, melanges of reporting and commentary, are 'the news'. Tsk.
Steve Uhr said...
This blog has officially become a "preaching to the choir" forum. Finding the rare opposing viewpoint is like a game of Finding Waldo.
This kind of comment interests me for it's lack of self awareness and inability to appreciate Althouse's intention and methods. First of all, Uhr's pronouncement suggests he has been reading this blog for some time, yet he misses the premise upon which our hostess serves these pieces to us. It can be summarized in simple terms as, "This interests me. Discuss." Sometimes the former phrase is accompanied by explication, or not, but the latter declaration is almost always the more important one. Althouse seeks insight and entertainment from the commenters. This is exemplary in Laslo's work, but few can combine both like he does.
Second, the lazy phrase "preaching to the choir" betrays Uhr's lack of reading comprehension. There is no choir. There are a range of viewpoints presented by commentators. If you don't see someone articulating what you perceive as an "opposing" viewpoint then provide it. My reaction to your word choice, however, is "opposing to what?" There is no monoculture here, like on TV and print media. So there is no one thing to "oppose" in that sense. If you think conservatives here (in which I would not include our hostess) are overrepresented maybe that's because they are the more articulate and prolific posters. The necessary response, were I in opposition to those views, would be to post something interesting and illuminating. The trite "choir" comment brings to mind a "call and response" type of situation, where you imply we are somehow an echo chamber of the hostess' thoughts. How laughable. You have to read pretty poorly to come to that conclusion about this group of commenters. But the real reason I dislike such a lazy phrase is that there ain't no "preaching" happening here. If you think there is, then please enlighten me, show me where Althouse is telling us what to believe and why.
Finally, I have to laugh at your "this blog has officially become" pronouncement. What a voice of authority you are! But so sorry, the fact you are here posting your crap OFFICIALLY proves your point is 100% wrong. Are you in the choir? Are you preaching? Are you confused?
I don't get the obsession people on the right have with the New York Times
It's influential and dishonest.
I am not referring to the hostess. I am referring to the fact that almost all the commentators share the same viewpoint. It did not used to be that way. And every time there is some disagreement the typical reaction is an onslaught of ad hominem attacks, which has apparently achieved its purpose of stifling dissent.
The word "officially' was used in jest, so I'm pleased you laughed.
Steve Uhr said...
It did not used to be that way. And every time there is some disagreement the typical reaction is an onslaught of ad hominem attacks, which has apparently achieved its purpose of stifling dissent.
11/14/16, 9:49 AM
As I recall (and my memory could be faulty) it was those with more liberal views that have been the first to jump into name calling. Do you recall "crackermc" (sic) at all? You know the fellow that KNEW everyone else was a white racist and was not afraid to say so? Or maybe garagemal (sic) who was another that was quick to insult but slow to actually post an argument?
If the discussion remains civil, it remains civil. Also, don't confuse a failure to agree with an attack. Bring whatever views you wish but also bring logical arguments and facts to back it up. I make no effort to hide that I am a small government capitalist with liberal social leanings. I can be swayed with logic. I believe that most here are also open to being swayed.
Lastly if someone is "crossing the line" into uncivil behavior feel free to call them out. Many here have, regardless of political leanings.
Uhr: I am not referring to the hostess.
To whom was the verb "preaching" attached in that post of yours?
I am referring to the fact that almost all the commentators share the same viewpoint.
I reject this premise. There are a multitude of viewpoints represented. Granted there are fewer progressive ones than in the past, but that's because commenters tend to come and go and be selective when they post. And progressives are very poor at logical argument, as represented by the ones that post here, so it may seem to you that there's a right-ish monoculture here among comments you can actually read. But I see that as more of a failure on the left half to keep up and post good takes.
[re-posted by me after cleaning up some ugly syntax]
Like most newspapers, their principal source of income is likely advertising, not subscriptions.
They have convinced me to be a "#neverNYT"er. Complete lack of trust.
Trump represents a diverse people. Over 300 million Americans and their Posterity. The New York Times is a distraction that will either float or sink with market approval.
"It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. "
To understand the terms "power", "impartially" and "unflinchingly" as used here, just keep in mind this quote from George Orwell: "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."
The NYT was very good about covering wikileaks stories..... with a pillow until they stopped moving.
Michael K,
I grew up in Chicago and recall (from my youth) that the Trib was the conservative (Republican establishment) paper while the Sun-Times was the liberal (Union Democrat) rag.
Once the liberasl established a toehold when John Madigan took over, it became a cockroach infestation. Liberals all over the place.
I don't see what Althouses problem is, should they done their all to get Donald Trump elected?
Your not supposed to read only read one newspaper in the first place, get a grip.
I don't see breitbart news being taken to task here.
You have selective outrage as well as anyone.
We all have biases and it can be seen in what we choose to cover, that's why you have more then one newspaper. Why do you keep beating a dead horse, we are a divided nation, biased media is news to NO ONE. It's as tedious as that metaphorical racial conversation we all need to be having every four years.
Post a Comment