pageok
pageok
pageok
"Taking Millions from Bay Area Newspapers and Causing Layoffs That Adversely Affect Coverage":

That's how a San Francisco Weekly article describe Craigslist.com. It's a funny locution — "taking millions." The problem, of course, is that online classified advertising is proving to be more convenient than newspaper advertisers both for advertisers and for buyers. Therefore, advertisers are going to sites like Craiglist.com; therefore, newspapers are getting less money; therefore, Craiglist is "taking millions" from the newspapers.

Now I should say that there is an underlying problem here; before the Internet, classified advertising funded newspapers' news departments, and the news departments in turn increased circulation and thus helped the advertisers. As advertising shifts to the Internet, news departments will have less funding. This, of course, was well-known; I wrote about it my 1995 Cheap Speech article, and I surely wasn't the first to observe it:

[N]ewspapers will lose a vast amount of classified ad revenue. This revenue accounted for forty percent of total newspaper ad revenue in the late 1980's; one commentator projects it will reach sixty percent by 2000. But paper classifieds are far inferior, for both buyers and sellers, to electronic classifieds that are untied to any newspaper.

A database of, say, all apartments for rent in the city would be much easier to search through than a newspaper classified section: . . . [T]he renter could ask for an instant list of all the one-bedroom apartments renting for less than $850 per month within three miles of UCLA, perhaps plus apartments that are a bit cheaper but a bit further, or more expensive but closer. The list should be more complete, because the information will be easier and cheaper to post. And the list should be timelier — the information will become available as soon as the landlord posts it, and can be removed as soon as the apartment is rented. Electronic classifieds are better on all counts than paper ones, and newspapers will have to adjust to a huge revenue loss when the paper classifieds stop coming in. . . .

[Footnote:] Newspapers can, of course, enter the classified market themselves. But the newspapers won't have any substantial edge over other service providers in this field. And even if a newspaper comes up with a fabulously profitable electronic classified service, the stockholders will probably be hesitant to use this service to subsidize a money-losing print operation.

The Internet, of course, makes publishing cheaper, so maybe an all-online non-classified-ad-supported site can fill some of the gaps that are produced as print newspapers have to cut back on their news departments. Nonetheless, it's possible that this business model will be still bring in less money to support news departments than the pre-Internet newspaper model did; worrying about the effect on newsgathering is thus quite legitimate.

But it seems to me much less sensible to cast this in terms of a more customer-pleasing business "taking millions" from you. The reality is that someone else is doing a much better job of serving the public than print classifieds ads are. Deal with that, and don't bellyache about how that someone else is a bad guy because he's outcompeting you and preventing you from making money (even if you hope to use that money for behavior that benefits the public).

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer; he collects more comments on the story, including a reaction from the story's author.

UPDATE: Reader Aaron C. points, in the comments, to Frederic Bastiat's Candlemaker's Petition:

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Gentlemen: . . .

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us.

The rest of the Petition is much worth reading, too, and, speaking of the Sun, reminds us that there is nothing new under it.

Huck (mail):
The newspapers should focus on the reader. It's an error to think they can survive selling reader's attention to advertisers. This FreeTV attitude will fail.

They have to sell a benefit to their readers.

Gathering and filtering information is the main business of newspapers.

Maybe they will have less advertise revenue so they have to get more reader revenue.

So what?

Some will go out of business. Sure. But there is a public need for a responsible and truthful service of gathering and filtering informations.

I pay about 200% for my newspaper than I did five years ago, due to shrinking advertising revenue. I probably would pay another hike. I can't do the filtering myself. No time.
12.2.2005 1:45pm
The Original TS (mail):
This is just one aspect of a general transformation of the media "industry."

The traditional media business uses a "push" model. The TV station chooses programs for you to watch and decides what time to put them on. Radio stations decide what music to play and when to play it. Newspapers choose, edit and bundle news and opinion (and ads) and present it to you as a package.

The internet is destroying all that. I don't need a huge, heavily capitilized, media company to act as a gatekeeper anymore. The internet is driving a transition to a "pull" media model. Radio stations? Who needs 'em? I've got every song I've ever heard in my life on my Ipod and if I want to listen to an actual radio program, I can just download it. The marginal cost of podcasting is effectively zero, so once the program has been created it can remain available online for download on demand forever. Reruns of old TV shows are going to be available on-line starting in a few months. They'll have built-in commercials and will be free to view.

The same thing is happening to newspapers. In fact, it happened to newspapers first. Paper newpapers literaly make no economic sense whatsoever unless you own a bird.

Why would I subscribe to a paper newspaper when I can read hundreds of newspapers on line? When I can dispense with the newspaper's news-gathering function entirely and view much of the source material for myself? When I can read thoughtful, well-written commentary by coming to this blog?

I wouldn't. Newspapers used to have an economic function as an intermediary that (especially with respect to classfied advertising) reduced the cost of search. They have no such function anymore. Therefore, they will cease to exist.
12.2.2005 2:12pm
Aaron C. (mail):
This article made me laugh. It reminds me of Bastiat's mockery of the candlemakers guild in which, speaking for the guild, he decried competition from the sun!
12.2.2005 2:14pm
Steve:
Prof. Volokh's commentary is both correct and silly at the same time. Of course a businessman who is losing business due to someone else's superior business model is not simply going to meekly go out of business. Among other things, while he (presumably) struggles to find a way to adapt his business model to changed circumstances, he will attempt to cast discredit on his competitor's business. Of course a mom-and-pop store is going to try to attract customers by saying "Don't let Wal-Mart drive us out of business!" That's the way of the business world.

If you want another example of a business that is doing everything in its power to discredit its new-fangled competitors rather than adapt from within, you could scarcely find a better example than the music industry.
12.2.2005 3:20pm
The Original TS (mail):
Exactly, Steve, the music business is another example of the "push" media business model that is no longer viable.

Once upon a time, record companies were the arbiters of taste. They chose the artists and they distributed the albums.

Now literaly anyone with a computer can distribute music and the concept of the album no longer makes any sense. Why would I buy a 12 song album which includes songs I dislike when I can just buy the three or four songs I like? Why do I need a huge marketing company to choose what bands will have the chance to be heard by the public when I can access music by thousands of "independent" bands on-line?

This model is already getting some traction and it is potentially a far greater threat to the music industry's current business model than file sharing could ever be. The fact is that for the vast majority of musical groups, they can do far better by self-publishing and building a small but loyal following using the Internet than they ever could signing with a label. They can literally sell music for a third of what it would cost in a traditional music store and still earn three times as much money.
12.2.2005 3:42pm
Wintermute (www):
Good idea about the music industry. Hmmm...this (podcast/song) is brought to you by Wal-Mart....

I need to run some numbers on this.

Oh yeah, local newspapers are going to have to run off their websites with a focus on local news and classifieds, just taking national and world feeds like other sites.
12.2.2005 3:46pm
Robert Lutton:
The real problem is the timid, techophobe capitalists who run these businesses. If major newspapers had led the way in putting their classifieds on line, there never would have been a craigslist. Clearly they started out in a dominant position where everyone would have needed to go to their site to check the classified. This would have given them a valuable audience to build on. Instead they did the usual thing of worrying about cannibalizing their newspaper sales and are going to end up losing the whole business.
12.2.2005 4:29pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
To me, what this all signifies is that there's no such thing as an unqualified good. The Internet is a wonderful thing, no doubt about it. But I don't think that you can trivialize the costs that we are discussing by comparing them to candlemakers or buggy-whip manufacturers.

The fact is that the cross-subsidization that was occurring before the Internet, with newspaper classifieds paying for the cost of editorial content, was not a bad thing. Because what it was paying for was reporting that costs money, i.e., investigatory reporting, on-the-scene reporting, etc. You will notice that on the 'Net, what we get is a lot more opinion content, including on this site. That's fine, but what is not clear is that you can get the sort of in-depth investigatory reporting (e.g., Woodward and Bernstein) or far-flung foreign correspondents without a generous and consistent funding source.

This trade-off has now been made, and it is going to be more difficult for newspapers to be profitable in the future. We can't unring the bell. But nobody should pretend that the things that newspapers were good at are going to be replicated on the web to the same extent. There's a lot of blog triumphalism out there, both because bloggers are technophiles who like the Internet, and because there are many of people who have ideological or other grudges against the "mainstream media" and don't mind them being taken down a couple of pegs. But this is a real cost, and we shouldn't sneer at the newspapers who are seeing something that they rightly believe is of real value to the public slipping away.
12.2.2005 4:35pm
The Original TS (mail):
Dilan, I largely disagree. The traditional media model doesn't investigate news so much as filter it. Fifty years ago, news was what a handful of editors decided it was.

With the internet, we no longer need that filter and everyone is, in effect, an investigative reporter. For every Woodward or Bernstein we lose, we gain a thousand individuals and organizations with an interest in pursuing a story and the ability to do so. As one trivial example, recall how quickly CBS's story about Bush's National Guard service fell apart because the primary evidence was available over the Internet. IIRC, it was a matter of hours before the documents had been correctly debunked. I'd wager that, had Watergate occurred today, there would have been thousands of "investigative reporters" chasing the story, not two.

The same thing is true for foreign correspondents. I don't need Geraldo Rivera (OK, especially not Geraldo Rivera) breathlessly telling me what's going on in some foreign locale. If I want to know, I can go directly to primary sources, eyewitnesses, etc. Moreover, I can read analysis that ties these sources together seamlessly. I needn't (and shouldn't) accept the 30 second TV version or the 3 column newspaper version.

As one example, in the hours before the start of the Gulf War, someone was running a webcam (with sound) in downtown Baghdad. I actually spent a couple of hours watching this. It was eerily fascinating and I didn't need my understanding of what was going on in Baghdad filtered through someone else's perceptions and priorities. I was able to experience it for myself.

The point is that disintermediation is not some infectious economic disease that strikes down otherwise health business models in their prime. It happens because those business models no longer add sufficient value to keep them alive.
12.2.2005 5:17pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I found the music mention interesting in light of the Sony DRM rootkit fiasco. I think it likely that the company being near panic due to the changing market was the cause of their over-reaching.

As to news gathering. Yes, to some extent news gathering is good. But a conservative (like me) could argue that divorcing the news from the money allowed many newspapers to list to the left as they started slanting the news they reported without any real commercial ramifications to that slanting. And this may indeed be one reason that many newspapers seem totally out of tune with the politics of their readerships - they don't have to be in tune to sell classified advertising if they are the only paper in town.
12.2.2005 5:22pm
dk35 (mail):
Original TS:

I just wanted to point out that your comment about the Bush National Guard documents being "correctly debunked" is, interpreded charitably, misleading, and interpreted less charitably, a falsehood.

I think you may have just helped support Dilan's argument.
12.2.2005 6:10pm
The Original TS (mail):
Sorry dk35, I don't follow you, do you deny that it was blog traffic that quickly tagged the CBS docs as forgeries?
12.2.2005 7:27pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Original TS and Bruce:

I think you underestimate the cost of serious investigative reporting. Assuming arguendo that Little Green Footballs got the Rather story right and the documents were fake, you still have to remember that this was a pretty easy thing to verify, one way or the other, based on pretty widely available information about what typewriters were available in the 1970's.

But most investigative reporting isn't like that. Instead, you have to spend long hours working sources to find things out, and then checking with other sources to confirm things. You have to talk to experts to interpret data. This costs a ton of money and time, and it takes people with real experience and good BS detectors to be able to do it. The Little Green Footballs / Dan Rather thing is the exception, not the rule.

Similarly, the model of a foreign correspondent isn't Geraldo Rivera. Great foreign correspondents don't just touch down and get their picture taken with an interesting backdrop. If you read the New York Times (and many of its vociferous critics don't), you will recognize names like Clifford Krauss and Sarah Lyall. These people spend years covering faraway places and become experts at "translating" what is happening in those places. The foreign bureaus that employ them cost a ton of money to maintain.

And with due respect to conservativism, I think sometimes conservative pundits and publications don't exactly impress me with their knowledge of what is going on in foreign countries. For instance, I am somewhat familiar with South American politics, and I will tell you that the view of Hugo Chavez that you see in conservative publications is quite a bit divorced from reality and is also rather two-dimensional, and those deficiencies are not unrelated to the fact that most of the people who comment in such publications have spent little or no time in South America, much less Venezuela.

It is easy to dismiss everything the mainstream media does as simply "filter". And it clearly does filter-- in ways that can be infuriating to liberals and conservatives alike. But the mainstream media also reports-- and does so in ways that uncompensated or undercompensated bloggers really can't replicate. And not all "filtering" is bad, especially when we are talking about reporting from foreign countries. Some information really is bunk or unimportant. The best reporters try to make honest determinations of what readers really need to know. That is a game that may be worth the candle of some ideological tinting of the information.
12.2.2005 7:46pm
The Original TS (mail):
Well, Dilan, I take you point about foreign correspondents but, once again, I'm not as convinced of you of their continuing utility. Take, for example, Iraq. If one could be bothered to devote a little bit of time to the project, there were literally hundreds of sources that would have given you a much more accurate and nuanced view of the situation on the ground there. Apart from English language Arab news sources (which, even if arguably biased, provided an invaluable understanding of how Iraqis themselves viewed events) there were hundreds of well-informed people actually working in and with Iraq who were providing their eyewitness accounts and analysis of events.

This would actually make an interesting book, once the dust settles. The mainstream media and, it must be said, the U.S. government were consistently projecting an image of Iraq largely at odds -- often wildly so -- with the experiences of people on the ground. (I remember one particularly surrealistic incident where OPIC was trying to get people to invest in Iraqi tourism projects!) These perspectives were to be had by anyone for the price of a google. Most of these voices were filtered out of the mainstream press but were well known and respected by others, especially in certain financial quarters.

The point here is that many of the people the foreign correspondent would have talked to to get a story were too busy blogging to be interviewed!

As for conservative or liberal or any other stripe of blog, you're exactly correct. That's what's so great about the internet, though. You have access to all sides of the story plus the primary source material so you can judge it for yourself. It's almost a law of physics. If you toss all the spins into the same box, they cancel each other out and only the truth remains.

There is one downside to this, though. It can all be too fascinating and take up way too much time! In our next post, we'll discuss the concept of "rational ignorance" and why it's probably a bad idea to read 14 blogs and enter into e-mail correspondence with a Maoist guerilla leader in order to accurately assess the current political situation in Nepal.
12.2.2005 9:11pm
SKlein:
"If one could be bothered to devote a little bit of time to the project, there were literally hundreds of sources that would have given you a much more accurate and nuanced view of the situation on the ground there."

And literally tens of thousands that aren't worth a damn, and no easy way to tell them apart. The sifting may not be done by a traditional newspaper, but ther is as least as much need in the online world as the offline to sort the wheat form the chaff.
12.2.2005 10:08pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Regarding the value of foreign correspondents and investigative reporters, I'd say Michael Yon has beaten them all in Iraq with just a laptop.
12.2.2005 11:27pm
countertop (mail):
No such problems here in the DC area that I know of where the Washington Post has long had its extensive classified available - and searchable - online.

When I am looking for something - such as the Cherokee I purchased this summer - I checked craigslist followed by the Washington Post classifieds. Found it on Craigslist. However, I sold my previous car through a paid ad in the Washington Posts classifieds. I would do it again, because when I sell something I want the widest audience possible to see it. Craiglist is good, but its just not omnipresent yet.

Now, if either one of them just let people buy and sell firearms, the world would be perfect, wouldn't it.
12.3.2005 12:55am
dk35 (mail):
Original TS,

No, my point is that the documents have not actually been proven to be forgeries. True, the blog traffic did work to publicize the opinions of certain experts who deemed the documents forgeries, but the fact is that other experts maintained (and still do maintain) that the documents could in fact be authentic. The problem was that the conservative blogosphere drowned out the conversation, giving the public the impression that the opinion of certain experts that the document was a forgery somehow amounted to proven fact.

Now I'm certainly not saying that the old-school MSM is the only place where balanced reporting is possible...and obviously there are plenty of examples of where the MSM has brought us anything but balanced reporting. However, I think that the whole documents example proves Dilan's point that while the Internet revolution has a lot of potential, we should be wary of considering it an unqualified good.
12.3.2005 11:06am
The Original TS (mail):
No, my point is that the documents have not actually been proven to be forgeries.

Well, dk35, we could have a metaphysical discussion on the meaning of proof, argue about what legal standard should be employed or invoke Bayesian statistics but by pretty much any measure, these documents have been "proven" false.

CBS itself issued a public report that, while it didn't admit the documents were false, withdrew its claim that they were genuine. They also fired Mary Mapes and Dan Rather for claiming the documents were genuine.

The mainstream media, which some folks have defended here, also concluded the documents were fake.

Here is an interesting article on the CBS story and the growing impact of the internet (blogs in particular) on the media.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0922/p01s03-stin.html

But, of course, this being the internet, I urge you to go to the primary source material yourself. Powerblog became a central clearing house for this story. Here's the link.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

This illustrates one of the key strengths of the internet when it comes to news reporting and analysis. It's extraordinarily meritocratic. Reading this blog, you can watch the story develop and see how the analysis of the documents is itself analyzed. For example, the initially apparently devastating claim that there was no such thing as proportional font in 1973 is quickly debunked.

Read it for yourself and judge it for yourself. That's the whole point.

On another point,
And literally tens of thousands that aren't worth a damn, and no easy way to tell them apart.

Not strictly true. One of the amazing things about the internet is how interesting and useful information tends to come to the top. It's actually quite a fascinating dynamic. There certainly is a great deal of useless drival and outright falsehood on line but it's surprising how easy it is to find reliable information. I think this is at least partly due to how easy it is to cross-check information.
12.3.2005 12:27pm
dk35 (mail):
Original TS:

Once again, I think you prove my point. Firstly, despite the fact that you tend to believe experts that say the documents were fake, you are more able to make use of the the internet to manipulate readers' understanding of the issue by simply asserting that, therefore, the documents were in fact fake. In saying this, I don't mean to attack you personally. Anyone could come along on the internet and assert an opinion as the truth, and because the internet has no filter, the majority will tend to rule every time. An argument can be made that this is exactly what happenned with the CBS story. In other words, the mainstream media may have been forced to back off the National Guard story because of the pressure created by bloggers who repeated the opinion that the documents were fake enough times that this entered the public consciousness.

This, for example, also seems to be what happenned regarding the leadup to the current war. The Bush administration's strategy of manipulating information to bring enough fear of terrorist attacks to the public consciousness probably led the media to back off in any attempts to present objective reporting.

I don't want to be seen as saying that the filters present in traditional media always (or even often) served the purpose of allowing for a more nuanced, balanced understanding of issues. I am all for new technologies. But in repeating conclusory statements and asserting that they are conclusory simply because a lot of people thought so on the internet, you are not necessarily doing the argument for the internet any favors.
12.3.2005 1:23pm
The Original TS (mail):
Firstly, despite the fact that you tend to believe experts that say the documents were fake, you are more able to make use of the the internet to manipulate readers' understanding of the issue by simply asserting that, therefore, the documents were in fact fake.

But you see, dk35, you're completely missing the point. I don't need to believe experts, I can view the evidence for myself. Have a look at that blog I cited. Follow the argument. Look at the documents yourself. Maybe you'll be convinced, maybe you won't. But you will have to agree that this process is a far cry from accepting a conclusory statement, "These documents are fake/genuine" and relying on the credentials of the source.
12.3.2005 2:33pm
dk35 (mail):
Original TS:

I think I'm finally managing to get you to see my point, even though you may not realize it yet.

The blog you cited is recognized to be conservative. Considering that there are no professional standards for accuracy, it's more likely than not that they created an argument using evidence that was in their favor. The important thing, though, is that you finally recognize it for what it is. An Argument. This is a major improvement from your initial comment seemingly stating a fact.

I'm not saying that the internet can't theoretically be used to get at the truth better than the traditional media. But what I am saying is that the National Guard story fallout is an example against, rather than for, that hope that the internet will lead to such truth.
12.3.2005 2:52pm
The Original TS (mail):
Sigh Looks like we'll have to have that discussion on Bayesian statistics after all.

Oddly enough, dk35, you're illustrating my point. You obviously have a deep-seated bias that causes you to cling tenaciously to a particular conclusion. In Baysian terms, you assigned your default assumption, that the documents were authentic, a very high initial truth value. As a result, you will not abandon your initial assumption and conclude that the documents are fake absent an extraordinarily large amount of evidence demonstrating that the documents are fake. For people who do not share your bias, you are not, therefore, a credible judge of the evidence. As your conclusions are inherently suspect, I must view and weigh the evidence myself before I can agree with you.

For what you call argument, I call evidence. Argument is what happens when you compare and contrast the evidence for and against the authenticity of the documents.

Powerblog does have a conservative bias, just as the prosecutor has a bias in favor of conviction. A prosecutor's bias is reflected in the way he or she views and argues the evidence. That bias does not, however, create that evidence. The defense attorney, with a corresponding bias, argues from the same evidence and reaches the opposite conclusion. Everyone in the courtroom recognizes these biases exist and the jury takes them into account when it reviews the evidence and reaches its verdict.

In this case powerblog, (the prosecutor) dug up some extremely compelling evidence and made a powerful case. The defense, 60 Minutes (and the liberal blogging community) had nothing. Their best evidnence -- expert testimony supposedly verifying the authenticity of the documents -- fell apart on cross examination.

That's the power of the internet. I don't have to accept your assertions at face value along with all the baggage and bias that comes with them. I don't have to believe the conclusions reached by the Weekly Standard or the New York Times. I, and everyone else, can view the evidence for ourselves. We can consider the arguments from both sides and reach our own conclusions.
12.3.2005 7:57pm
markm (mail):
dk35: Ignore the yammering of opinion. Go to the sites that show the document in question next to samples of typewritten documents from the 1970's, and next to the same words typed into Microsoft Word. Judge for yourself, which sample does it most look like?

I might have a slight advantage. Around the putative date of that document, I was typing assignments for college on an old manual typewriter. I should remember what real typewriting looks like. Still, in looking at those examples of old typewritten documents, I was stunned by how far word processing + laser or inkjet printers have advanced since those days.

For me, the clincher was the site that posted a page from the IBM Selectric manual. One of IBM's selling points (and I do remember seeing it advertised back then) was that the top-of-the line Selectric was so good that it could be used to produce photo-ready copy for the printers, bypassing the long and expensive process of typesetting, and the manual was a demonstration of this. One wouldn't have mistaken the manual for professionally typeset copy, but in 1973 it was good enough. This copy, prepared carefully by full-time typists after taking long training in getting the most out of the Selectric, looks terrible compared to what just about any office worker can now print out from Word without any special effort, and it looks much worse than the CBS memo did even after being copied and faxed several times.

That's more than enough for me. If IBM or anyone else could have produced a typewriter in 1973 capable of making better-looking text than those manuals, no way would IBM have embarassed themselves by bragging about the manuals. The only way the document CBS news based their story on could have been produced in 1973 was with typesetting equipment. A Lt. Colonel in charge of a group of airplanes wouldn't have had access to or known how to use a typesetting machine, and I can't see even a professional typesetter making a single-copy memo to himself by casting lines of type in lead, arranging them in a frame, installing the frame in a printer, and feeding one sheet through. (In fact, according to this particular Lt. Col's secretary, he didn't know how to operate a typewriter; forget about the proportional spacing and raised "th", just the centered and right-justified lines should have been beyond his ability.)
12.3.2005 7:58pm
dk35 (mail):
Original TS:

Well, along with Bayesian statistics I can also bring out the concept of projectin. For, I never said that the documents were authentic. I merely said that the resolution of the issue with the documents is that neither side could definitely prove whether the documents were in fact real or fake. Markm, your comment can be handled with the brief response that several experts have claimed that there were in fact typewriters from the time in question that could have produced the documents in question. Your anectodal experience is irrelevant, sadly.

Original TS, your failure to acknowledge that some experts disagree with your opinion shows your inability to see beyond your desire for the documents to be forgeries. The fact that a conservative blog marshalled certain evidence and certain expert opinion, without the filter of professional standards at least theoretically associated with traditional journalism, doesn't make your assertaions true.

So, it does seem as if you have proven my point again.
12.3.2005 8:12pm
dk35 (mail):
hehe...well, I will admit to the typo. I meant "Projection" of course.
12.3.2005 8:13pm