March 3rd, 2017

Press bias by omission

Some of the worst press bias goes under most people’s radar for the simple reason that it’s accomplished by omission. To spot an omission, you have to be aware of what is omitted, and that can only come from knowledge gleaned from other news sources (or in some cases, from your own experience).

But if people are only reading the MSM, and tweeting in an echo chamber, how would they ever learn what’s missing? It’s less of a problem on the right, for the simple reason that since so much of the MSM skews to the left, it’s harder for the right to avoid what the left is covering. However, it’s very easy for people on the left to avoid stories on the right.

Today we find two discussions of recent examples of how the press has shaped opinion by leaving things out: this piece at RedState, and this one at Ace’s. I recommend both.

27 Responses to “Press bias by omission”

  1. Cornhead Says:

    Much of the press is in full advocacy mode, but their game still works on many people. Just the headline “Sessions lied” gets the idea out.

  2. Griffin Says:

    Where the MSM really get themselves into trouble in this area is with these made up ‘scandals’ because since they are manufactured there are so many examples of their guys doing the same thing. We have seen this with McCaskill, Schumer, Pelosi and countless others who have acted like it was the worst thing since the Cambridge Five for Flynn or Sessions or whoever to meet with Russian diplomats when in fact their own actions prove that it is pretty benign, regular diplomatic activity.

    When they overshoot so severely they only serve to embarrass themselves as if they care at this point.

  3. Artfldgr Says:

    Artfldgr Says:
    March 27th, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    but again… dont you find it funny that there are no movies as to the millions MORE that stalin killed over the number hitler did? almost no movies that show the reality of the cold war… (and those that do, blame the oppressor US)…

    what about che? how could kids learn to love che? easy, there are no movies that show him, but there ARE collectivists who cheer and lie by omission…

    The lefts favorite game is to lie by omission becuase of the ego and other issues that come out of it if you ken the game.

    let me first say this:
    The magician, the revolutionary leaders, and others are professionals at manipuating people and created false reality without their charges even knowing it or even being able to keep up, unless experienced and even then.

    the average person is not such.. i used to design magic tricks for stage performances (you know, hiding tigers) as a teen for fun… i also studyed hypnotism from a professional too, as that is also in magic.

    the idea that they cant trick you or you would get it and understand it without knowing the game or principals is not cogent but it feels like it.

    why? EGO.

    well a lie by omission, the person who it works on, would have to admit that they dont know, and that is something that not many people do a lot of, due to ego.

    you ask people, what is the sound of one hand clapping, they wont say they dont know, they will pretnd to know, they will say something “clever” they will do a lot, but the one thing 99% wont do is say i dont know the answer, what is it? they may even deny that there is an answer, meanwhile its an idiots test!!! like which comes first chicken or the egg. these things HAVE classical answers that are deemed right, but unless you study in certain areas, you would be ignorant of the reference.

    so anyone using it that knows, is testing

    so when they lie by omission, its easier to call the other person a liar making something up and inserting it, rather than filling in the missing gap, of which we have no sense of.

    this is multiplied by the posture that willi munsenberg gave them all, with the haughty self superiorty looking dfown in disdain. thats his thing…

    Thats ignorati being told they are cognosenti.

    same wiht feminism.. its a poisonus toxic lie and game in which only those tha are a part of it or studied it for the missing stuff, would know… those that didnt wont, and women, wont accept they been punked and did all that damage for a game lie worked out by soviets who following marx, knew that to take over the culture as they learned from hitler, was to take over women and their thinking, and the way to do that, is to bribe them, which they did.

    this then let the whole game create winners from losers who have fragile egos who woud rather feel like killing someone that exposes their lack and makes them lose face and respect and so on.

    i could tick off the years, the papers, and the things that were going on and when they bubbled up. Heck, right now i am having fun revistinng the mens movement i helped create MGTOW over at mancoat… its now in dozens of countries and the women are all fighting over it, the militants are shaming

    but we worked out that a game of not being there the way the soviet union did to the US by removing its opposition and let it flunder, would work for the doyens bieng used by the same movement!!

    MGTOW is a movement of no connection
    once the guy decides not to have such issues
    he withdraws from that, and GOES HIS OWN WAY
    you cant shame him back to your arms
    you cant push him back into pseudo slavery for a unapreciative hating person who feels vindicated and confirmed by society in her treatment

    in the past the man needed woman to copperate, and made family with her, she destroyed it for state freebies and he idea she didnt have to be what she was after they gave her her legendary self loathing.

    now, the men would rather not bother. its a losing deal, or as one famous person said, it woudl have been easier and quicker if i found a woman i didnt like and bought her a house.

    by the way, this all came around from discussions and the left even copied: a day wthout immigratns

    people are ignorant of tons of stuff, and if try to give them the information and they dont know, your posts will be too long they will team up, they will not skip over and so on. its to the point its like a formula, or like jostling a bright object near a cat and watching their reflex kick in over and over without their being able to stop it and then the person doing it thinks its play..

    how many read about willi munsenberg when i put it up to fill in the blanks about that whole subject we are on now and have been? of course, if you dont know willi existed, you dont knwo the reason and your going to make it up just like what is the sound of one hand clapping and the best made up fill ins as we teach kids to do in school, become the truth.

    then to defend the ego, the false truth has to defended.

    so aids was made in american labs, despite the confessions of the soviets and all the history around it, you can still hear black pastors admonishing their people to hate white man for that.

    how many know that the tuskeegee syphilus study was funded by a husband and wfie communist team who were running sears, funded race hate, highlander school closed for communist subversion that trained rosa parks?

    how many will refer to fredrick douglas 16 page speech (i could not even put up 1 whole page of that, the truth takes too long, lies are short)… instead of the lie that the founders saw blacks not as whole people?

    why is Zinns communist history of the US our textbooks?
    Inside Howard Zinn’s FBI Files
    The historian and activist died in January, but the 400 pages the FBI compiled on him for over 25 years are just being released. Friends Noam Chomsky and others tell Clark Merrefield what they mean.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/30/howard-zinns-fbi-files-reveal-communist-allegations.html

    how many want to believe the fronts were named with peoples, league, council, etc.. if you knew the russian words, you might, but people dont study russian like obama mother and father, obama who also speaks arbic, and others. so they cant get the inside joke, can they

    sociopaths love duping delite.

    there is tons of this, but since 1968 when the ny times and press met with CIA to help create the concept of conspiracy theories as all false.. (so why are the dems conspiracy theories not false? we refuse to be labeled and so refose to acknowlege the purple elephatn taking a dump in our lives.

    during the election, press was 91% against trump
    since he won, its been over 88% (or so)

    that meant that he won with only 9% favorable news
    he is now dealing with only 12% favorable news

    did you guys know it was THAT bad?

    par for the course for ex soviet family

    by the way, they caught the antisemite that was phoning in bomb threats to jewish places, a black journalist anti trump communist… which makes sense if you read “the jewish question” and know why that was omitted from “the final solution to the jewish question” and that the left and all communists will not rest till all jews (and now their defenders white men) are gone.

    they have NEVER changed their tune because to change a tiny bit, is to become impure and everything else is to be tainted.. not that… they wont let what they do to other things, do to that they desire that gives them power and ownership of the planet, and by extension, potenially the solar system and at least the local universe and everything there.

    this is also why they redefine words or slip them in one way then another. i remember when they started slipping in the word gender into laws. and how funny it was to sit in strategy meetings where they explained that one meaning is synonym for male and female sex, but it also means something else. so by using that word for a while, replacing sex, they were changing the law withotu changing the law. then suddenly meanign two is the right one, and the synonym dies.

    voila said the magician as he shows you the rabbit from nowhere

    the whole point about choosing laws to enforce was not to give power to their extra judicial games though it seems like that and they do use it, but its point in strategy was to create laws that are not valid and are unconstitutional, but since no one was being arested for them, under our law no one could petition the court to challenge them. howeve,r the minute something happens and somethnig changes, thousands of laws created for no reason but they say is show, will be in effect and we are locked down.

    but you would only know that if your not misdirected by the magician, and werent yelling to the other magicians, dont tell me i want it to be a surprise.

  4. parker Says:

    I agree that not reporting what is definitely news fit to print is a serious matter. The uninformed are easily lead. What is sad is so many are unwilling to do due diligence.

  5. Ann Says:

    The NY Times does now have a separate article about the removed Claire McCaskill quote discussed in the RedState post Neo linked to: AP FACT CHECK: McCaskill Wrong About Contacts With Russian

  6. expat Says:

    The effect is even worse with CNN International because so few people have any real understanding of America. They can’t even begin to formulate questions about the things not covered. We all know that Pelosi is a partisan rich fool born into a Democrat political family. They probably see her as a strong woman who worked her way to the top and whose statements are more than partisan drivel.

  7. Frog Says:

    I do my own news due diligence, including viewing a video today of Juan Thompson’s father [Juan being the black “journalist” arrested for desecrating a Jewish cemetery].
    He answered a reporter’s question in Ebonics in that classical rapid fire fashion that blacks adopt when they are angry, a kind of machine-gun speech intended apparently to overwhelm. He was quite unintelligible. I do not know if he was angry at his son or angry at his son being collared, just couldn’t make it out. I suspect the former, since most apples fall close to the tree.

  8. Woolius Bullius Says:

    The McCaskill story helps to explain the NY Times new motto: “Truth. It’s hard to find.”

  9. Frog Says:

    Whoops! Crossed my wires. Juan was arrested for anti-Jewish bomb threats. The cemetery desecrations of recent occurrence are by others.

  10. AesopFan Says:

    Woolius Bullius Says:
    March 3rd, 2017 at 6:15 pm
    The McCaskill story helps to explain the NY Times new motto: “Truth. It’s hard to find.”
    * * *
    Zing.

    RS has another couple of good posts on the subject.

    http://www.redstate.com/scotthounsell/2017/03/03/fbi-director-comey-updates-congress-russia-investigation-surprise-dems-still-unhappy/

    Now comes the revelation from honesty watchdog Congressman Trey Gowdy, that Comey did indeed give a full testimony and information about the ongoing investigation.

    “Jim Comey did more today to update us than I have ever had done in the 6 years I have been there and for Adam to treat it that way, that dismissively, clearly he and I were in two separate rooms this morning.”

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/03/03/investigation-reveals-surprise-organizer-jeff-sessions-meeting-russian-ambassador/

    The implication is that Sessions had to have been meeting about the campaign because he was traveling on campaign funds.

    Now we know who made that meeting possible.

    “The first came at a conference on “Global Partners in Diplomacy,” where Sessions was the keynote speaker. Sponsored by the U.S. State Department, The Heritage Foundation, and several other organizations, it was held in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention. The conference was an educational program for ambassadors invited by the Obama State Department to observe the convention. The Obama State Department handled all of the coordination with ambassadors and their staff, of which there were about 100 at the conference.

    Apparently, after Sessions finished speaking, a small group of ambassadors—including the Russian ambassador—approached the senator as he left the stage and thanked him for his remarks. That’s the first “meeting.” And it’s hardly an occasion—much less a venue—in when a conspiracy to “interfere” with the November election could be hatched.”

    And do you know why Sessions used campaign funds? Because he was going to attend the RNC convention and knew that if he used Senate funds then the left and the hardcore #NeverTrump people would be going batsh** crazy.

  11. AesopFan Says:

    The “sin” of talking to Russian’s to influence a US election is a new one in the canon, by the way.
    It used to be a commendable tactic.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/conspire-with-russia-to-swing-presidential-election-its-been-done.php

    Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

    Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

    Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

    Among the promises Kennedy made the Soviets was he that would ensure that the television networks gave the Soviet leader primetime slots to speak directly to the American people, thus undermining Reagan’s framing of the sinister nature of the USSR. Even then, the Democrats had the power to collude with the legacy media. Kennedy also promised to help Andropov penetrate the American message with his Soviet agitprop.

    That’s right, folks. Even 30 years ago, Democrat senators were colluding with America’s enemies to bring down Republicans.

    * * *
    This has been “hiding in plain sight” for decades, of course.

  12. AesopFan Says:

    Oops – made an apostrophe fault there.
    “Russians” of course.

  13. OM Says:

    The “Lyin'” of the Senate, indeed. But that was then, this is now (lying about republicans), oops, that was then too.

  14. Yann Says:

    Neo, people don’t want to read stories that make them realize that they were wrong.

    Why do you think so many people ask for censorship? (of course, to censor the opposite side). People don’t want to know the truth, they want to “know” that they were right from the very beginning.

  15. Bill Says:

    AesopFan,

    We’re awash in what’s called “Whataboutism” these days.

    “Oh, talking to Russia to swing an election is bad? Well, the Democrats did it too. What about that?”

    Two things can be wrong at the same time.

    I know Trump won fair and square. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a bad thing if Russia even tried to influence the election. And, by the way, Trump was all for them doing whatever they could do. He said it, publicly – “hack her”. He was also a huge fan of leaks, before they started coming from his own white house.

    I think the best thing for Trump to do would be to have full disclosure on his business ties to foreign governments (and domestic powers that be as well). Who has leverage on him? What will benefit him financially (since he never even pretended to divest and his “blind trust” is eyes wide open).

    Democrat or Republican President, I want to know what their conflicts of interest are.

  16. Yann Says:

    I know Trump won fair and square. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a bad thing if Russia even tried to influence the election.

    There’s no evidence of Russia interfering US election. Assange himself said that the leaks were not provided by the Russians.

    However, United States indeed did interfere in Israel, financing the opposition to Netanyahu

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/24916-us-has-interfered-in-foreign-elections-multiple-times

  17. Kyndyll G Says:

    Bill, seriously. You’re an example of what press bias, and lazy reporting and listening has created on this topic. Trump DID NOT tell Russia to hack Hillary. He said: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

    At the time this was said, the emails were gone. The FBI was already investigating and we can safely presume that the kindergarten-caliber system in question was long since offline. He was obviously not directing anyone to hack into an already-down system to steal emails that were already gone.

    Your choice of whether it was said as campaign snark, or simply as a jab at his opponent’s mile-wide weak spot, or both. A real politician would have thought better of saying this as a joke for the very reason why this has turned into a Big Deal, but to Trump, it was timely humor at the expense of the incompetent, corrupt bag of excrement that he was running against. What it was not, was a directive, suggestion, invitation or otherwise to “hack her” even if legions of lefties whose idea of following the news is watching comedians and reading HuffPo think that’s what he said. Aren’t we better at basic comprehension than the average lefty LIV?

  18. Matthew M Says:

    Thanks, Neo, for calling attention to the ways the press lies in broad daylight. I remember earlier posts in which you described stories that give propaganda in the headline and early paragraphs while the facts that don’t logically lead to the purported conclusion are buried at the bottom of the article.

    I just read a NYT story titled “Trump to Undo Vehicle Rules That Curb Global Warming.” The first line of the article calls it a rule regarding pollution: “The Trump administration is expected to begin rolling back stringent federal regulations on vehicle pollution that contributes to global warming…” Remember the dense fog of automobile exhaust of the early 1970s and earlier? Is maniac Trump going to excuse the automotive industry from catalytic converters or other pollution reducing equipment? Will the twenty or so mandated formulations of gasoline be decreased?

    Sentences such as this flesh out the article: “The regulatory rollback on vehicle pollution will relax restrictions on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and will not require action by Congress.” Is it now bad that changes in regulation can occur without Congress? If it were, then the EPA would not have been able to unilaterally decide that carbon dioxide was pollution to begin with. Will the left ever be ashamed of hypocrisy? I won’t hold my breath—unless I want to be a good citizen and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    Finally, beyond the headline peruser’s range: “The tailpipe pollution regulations were among Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to reduce global warming and were put forth jointly by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. They would have forced automakers to build passenger cars that achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, compared with about 36 miles per gallon today.”
    This was not a pollution control issue at all. It has to do with government-mandated mileage. No vehicle emissions were to be changed, only the amount. The article notes blithely that complying with Obama’s rules was to cost $200 billion over thirteen years and implies that it was a ploy to require more widespread adoption of electric cars. (That $200 billion was money that could have been spent on other things.)

    Social engineering in the name of “global warming” is discussed under the misnomer of “pollution.” Propaganda complete. (By the way, is it significant that the term “global warming” was used rather than “climate change?”)
    Thanks again for a providing a place for a rant from someone who no more prefers to go back to the choking smog of the early 1970s than he does to pre-industrial poverty or the brave new world of $37,000 compact cars.

  19. Ray Says:

    Press bias by omission? That’s not bias. Everyone knows the press is composed of democrat party shills pretending to be reporters. They are dishonest, not biased.

  20. Bill Says:

    “Bill, seriously. You’re an example of what press bias, and lazy reporting and listening has created on this topic. Trump DID NOT tell Russia to hack Hillary. He said: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

    Trump continuously cheerleaded on this topic, and the formerly-conservative Republican party got all dove-eyed about guys like Julian Assange and leaks. Leaks were awesome when HRC was the one getting targeted.

    We could argue about this all day. Trump encouraged the Russians to get involved in the information wars during the campaign. I imagine he was kidding, kind of, and I know it was just sloppy political speech.

    I also know, to the earlier commenter’s point, that the USA, and in particular the last administration but I would imagine many others, have interfered in other government’s elections (heck, we’ve done more than interfere). Whataboutism is meaningless to me at this point. What is right? What is wrong? That’s what I care about.

    Trump had a good 3 or 4 days of being presidential after his speech last Tuesday that had everyone falling all over themselves about how wonderful it was (yet when Obama proposed some of the same things, it wasn’t as wonderful, was it? At least I’ve remained consistent).

    Now he’s back in Twitter, accusing Obama of wire-tapping him. No evidence yet, no comment from the White house.

    That’s a pretty big accusation. Maybe it’s true? Provide evidence.

    But how about fighting better? People who get excited because “Trump fights” are off the mark, I think. I wish he’d lose the whining, and anyone who thinks Twitter is a great weapon is delusional. If Obama ordered you wire-tapped that’s a pretty big deal. Present better evidence than Mark Levin and Breitbart, please.

    Presidential . . .

  21. Matthew M Says:

    AesopFan, I’m still waiting for any Democrat to get a comeuppance for their despicable behavior or destructive policy. Ted Kennedy would be a great start.

  22. Bill Says:

    “Ted Kennedy would be a great start.”

    Well, he’s no longer living, so he’s already gotten whatever comeuppance was coming to him by his Maker.

  23. geokstr Says:

    parker Says:
    March 3rd, 2017 at 5:05 pm
    “I agree that not reporting what is definitely news fit to print is a serious matter.”

    IIRC, I mentioned this here many months ago, but it bears repeating amid all this talk about fake news, news bias, and bias by omission.

    None of this is a new phenomenon, it’s been going on in the US in favor of Marxists/Communists for many, many decades with the NY Times smack in the forefront of it. In 1931, the infamous Walter Duranty authored columns denying the deliberate starving to death of millions of Russians. He even got a Pulitzer Prize, which they declined to revoke twice (1990/2003) for what they claimed was a lack of evidence that he lied.

    Then, 40 years later, in 1971, Herman Dinsmore, a former insider at the Times as an associate foreign news editor, wrote an expose on their bias called “All the News That Fits” an appropriate takeoff on their official slogan “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

    It’s out of print, but used copies can still be had by clicking on neo’s Amazon button.

  24. Barry Meislin Says:

    Related (heh):

    https://no-pasaran.blogspot.co.il/2017/03/french-magazine-hides-fact-that-in.html

  25. Big Maq Says:

    It’s less of a problem on the right, for the simple reason that since so much of the MSM skews to the left, it’s harder for the right to avoid what the left is covering” – Neo

    How does one measure this?

    I happen to believe it is generically true, as far as it goes.

    No doubt, many readers come away thinking this is a “harder” truth than it really is.
    .

    It is FAR easier nowadays for those on the right to isolate themselves and avoid the MSM. And, it is only getting yet even easier.

    There is so much choice today in the what, where and how one consumes information (not all of it in a traditional “news” format) that it is probably more strongly true that people are selecting a large percentage (overwhelming majority of?) their information sources.

    This likely is more so the further one slides down the age scale.
    .

    It’s human nature! It is MUCH more comfortable to reinforce ideas and viewpoints you agree with.

    Roll in blue vs red team politics, and this is very much the reason why we seem to be in a “select your own truth” era.

  26. Big Maq Says:

    “But how about fighting better? People who get excited because “Trump fights” are off the mark, I think.” – Bill

    Worse, it encourages a destruction of the ties that bind us together in our republic.

    It is a focus on getting even rather than on getting the right things done.

    It exposes the hypocrisy of the complaints these people all have of the “left” and what “they” do.

    It mires conservative ideas in the muck of the petty, the narcissistic, the irrelevance of those ideas to “winning!”, and the incompetence.

    But, we’ll see!

  27. AesopFan Says:

    Another entry in the genre.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/07/ny-times-supports-free-speech-but-blames-right-for-narrative-about-progressive-campus-culture/

    “There is a lot to like about the New York Times editorial on the silencing of free speech that took place recently at Middlebury college, but there is also a problem. Midway through, the Times inserts a paragraph suggesting the incident is part of a right-wing narrative aimed at unfairly blaming progressives, rather than an example of a genuine problem with progressive culture on and off campus. “

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge