Monday, December 19, 2005

Can This Be True?

Shockingly, this UCLA study finds that 90% of the major news outlets lean to the left. Did we really need a study to tell us that? via Pajamas Media


Blogger DRJ said...


7:55 PM, December 19, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

The numbers within the numbers were instructive. In round numbers, the average American was set at 50, and the average Democrat was over 80, (0-100, most conservative to most liberal). Media outlets came in a bit over 60.

This is certainly to the left of the American people, but because it is to the right of the average Democrat, it allows the MSM to perceive themselves as centrist, and thus, unbiased. Of course, the 10+ point move means that an average conservative will be 40 points away from the MSM's perceived "center" and look like an extremist, because 40 points in the other direction would be out in the Neverland of leftist craziness. A ten-point misperception of where the center is is a lot.

This is about what we see in practice. The MSM does find some things too far left and treats it with the same archness it uses on conservatives. But those "some things" are few in number, and way out there.

8:12 PM, December 19, 2005  
Anonymous Auld Pharte said...

I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Or not.

If you find yourself without anything constructive to do for a couple of hours, take a look at the graduate faculty of the "top" journalism schools - Columbia for example. Credentials are replete with the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, PBS (Bill Moyers mentioned specifically) etc. This experience is obviously valued in the academic community, and so we get the revolving door syndrome - graduate from [modern] liberal journalism school, work in liberal media, teach in liberal journalism school. It's difficult to see when or how this particular recurring phenomenon is likely to change for the better.

10:10 PM, December 19, 2005  
Blogger Julian Morrison said...

Numbers are always important. They show you're referring to data, not delusions. The other side can no longer question the facts, only their desirability. Unconvinced persons might take the debate seriously where before they'd have regarded it as partisan sloganizing. So yeah, needed.

10:34 PM, December 19, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

The authors of this study freely conflate bias with citation. It may well be true that the media's citations are, on average, to the left of the American political center. But that does not prove bias, in the dictionary sense of an "inclination that inhibits impartial judgment". Who you cite is not the same as who you are. And, more importantly, just because you are to the left or the right of the American political center, does that make you biased? Is it a reasonable axiom that the American public isn't biased? After all, Americans are clearly to the right of Canadians on average; they can't both be unbiased.

Or is the thesis that all news is supposed to be "balanced" for its own audience? That journalists are not supposed to influence public opinion? Would Southerners have ever decided that racial segregation is wrong if their news was always "balanced" to fit their prior views?

Consider applying the methodology of this study to a college biology class. The American public is about evenly split between believing creationism (or "intelligent design") and believing evolution. The typical college biology class presents evolution as established scientific fact and has zero sources in support of creationism. So by the metric of UCLA political scientists, biology classes are "biased" and "unbalanced". They "lean to the left". In fact, if you think that there are too few Republicans in the Columbia School of Journalism, try surveying the religious views of the Columbia biology department. You will find an overwhelming atheist "bias".

The reality, of course, is that some American Christians are continuing an unnecessary fight with mainstream biologists. Any endorsement of anti-evolutionary religious doctrine in a biology class would be the real bias.

1:23 AM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Moof said...

Media is so far to the left that the contrast makes the "median" media seem as if it's gone off the scale to the right ...

10:15 AM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So our intrepid pal Kuperberg sounds off, full of academese. As he tries to explain away media bias, he realizes that he is sounding like a pompous and out of touch academic. So he shifts to creation science arguments---which have nothing to with media bias, other than as a straw man argument.

So...if the media is not biased, friends, why was Sandy Berger given a pass by the media, but we still haven't heard the end of the Valerie Plame story? Remember, we have never heard precisely what Berger stuffed down his pants, except that they were top secret, and he "didn't mean to do it." Nor have we heard anything mroe about the documents.

Whether or not K. agrees or not isn't the issue. The truth is that the media is biased leftwards. They like leftist philosophies, and so they defend them in both their reporting and their choice of stories.

Creation science and intelligent design are topics for another day...

10:31 AM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Creationism has everything to do with media "bias". When reporting on creationism and evolution, the media clearly "leans to the left" of the American public. The public is evenly split between creationism and evolution. But the media isn't; it plainly favors evolution.

Why would the media be "biased" on this issue? As another commenter pointed out, journalists are trained in the academic environment. My point was that mainstream academia is even more "biased" on evolution vs creationism than the mainstream media is. I happen to agree with the mainstream media on this one, but what does that count for?

Media "bias" is about much more than Sandy Berger.

12:06 PM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troll, troll, troll...

The subject is NOT your straw man. I started to write a reply, that the issue is the *perception* of fairness (and the asinine way that the poll questions are phrased), rather than antiscience or pro-religious idealism...but it falls right into the Kuperberg Trap.

Please stick to the topic.

1:04 PM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Teresa said...

Greg - the problem is not that they are biased... as annoying as that can be when they are reporting a story. The problem is that they claim to be "unbiased" or they have been for as long as I have been listening to them. It's only in the last year or so that I've been hearing actual statements from these very people that "maybe we are a bit biased"... ya think?

Years ago newspapers were certainly biased in one direction or the other - when you bought the paper you knew what kind of bias you were reading. Then some time in the late 60's the news people started to proclaim themselves as completely neutral... a bigger load of horse manure was never unloaded on the public. Geeze.

As for a study to tell us about the bias. Well as Julian notes above... the numbers provide concrete proof that there is a bias - that it's not just people listening or reading news and providing their own anecdotal evidence to support their own theory. If the study itself was carefully done - then the numbers have meaning and do show that the perception is accurate and has substance.

1:12 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Teresa: Before discussing any problem of bias, you have to explain what does and does not count as bias. Then we can talk about whether it is or isn't annoying. The authors of this particular study define "bias" as deviation from American public opinion. My point is that if that's what you mean by "bias", then you are opening the door to a host of unwelcome examples: Is evolution established scientific fact? Is abortion murder? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi? The media is hopelessly "biased" on all of these questions by the UCLA definition of "bias". But if that's what counts as "bias", then not only is it not annoying, newspapers would have to blatantly and systematically lie to avoid "bias".

I agree with you that any news desk that constantly proclaims itself to be neutral, unbiased, or "fair and balanced" has an attitude problem. When it is actually true, it is a problem. However, I have read the New York Times on most days for the past 15 years and I do not know of even one instance where it told me that it isn't biased. Maybe it escaped my notice — the Times does after all publish more than a million words a month. If you were right, then you should be able to find at least one example a week in the Times specifically. Can you give an example?

The only major news desk that I know of that really does repeatedly claim to be balanced is Fox News. (Although, since I have no television, there may be other examples on TV.) Not only does Fox claim this, it systematically weaves it into its editorials, and it also casts aspersions onto its competitors on the same point. I agree with you that that's a problem.

2:14 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Bill Dalasio said...

By and large, media bias is pretty well unavoidable. The bulk of news significant enough to pass on to the national market comes from roughly four or five major markets. Those markets tend to be much more liberal than the country as a whole. That said, I think technology is working to overcome this problem. The blogosphere is giving virtually anyone with a modem and an e-mail account the ability to bypass the media's role as gatekeepers. Widespread proliferation of new media has made it harder for the legacy media to define itself as the mainstream of acceptable thinking.

2:27 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Bill Dalasio said...

Mr. Kuperberg,

You may want to take a glance at the the mast head of your precious Times. "All the News That's Fit to Print" seems a pretty clear statement of unbiasedness where I'm sitting.

2:34 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Bill Dalasio: It's nothing of the sort. First of all it's a 100-year-old sales slogan and not an editorial position. It didn't suddenly reveal itself "in the late 60s". It goes back to the days when, as Teresa said, all newspapers were openly biased.

Even as just a sales slogan, all that it suggests is that the Times is comprehensive, not that it isn't biased. In fact it is a fairly comprehensive newspaper.

Frankly the real reason that for this false accusation against the Times is the fact, regardless of what the Times says about itself, that it has influence. That's what really bugs people.

2:50 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Bill Dalasio said...

Greg Kuperberg,

Um...if you actually watch Fox, the "Fair and Balanced" tagline is just as much a sales slogan as "All the News Thats Fit to Print" . The statement doesn't come up much in their editorial positions, simply their advertising. Moreover, the the Times' tagline implies comprehensive coverage of any given story, including any information that undermines the paper's editorial positions. Otherwise, of course, they aren't printing all the news, unless you somehow believe that only left-of-center story details are "fit to print". Unfortunately, the Times often fails to provide information that proves inconvenient for its editorial stance. Quite clearly, it fails to meet its promise on this ground. So, since you seem perfectly okay with the Times use of its tagline, your criticisms of Fox News' tagline must be in jest.

3:17 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

There is another interesting direction to take Teresa's position that the real problem with the mainstream media is how it describes itself. What about the way that two very different sources of news and opinion describe each other? I will make the deliberately provocative comparison of The New York Times vs The Instapundit.

You can search for "Instapundit" or "Glenn H. Reynolds" (also without the "H") at the New York Times and you will get about a dozen relevant hits. (There is also a banker named Glenn Reynolds, no apparent relation.) Every one of these references shows basic respect, often outright praise. The only real criticism comes from a single reference by Paul Krugman, who derides Glenn's comparison between Mississippi and Sweden. But even Krugman clearly attacks the ball and not the man.

You can also search for the New York Times at Many of these references are accusatory. Some of them are downright rude. "And people wonder why The New York Times has credibility issues?", reads one typical subject line.

If you folks want the "pajamas media" to be a useful complement or alternative to the "mainstream media", then I agree that there are many ways that the blogosphere could help. I'll even say that Instapundit in particular has some real influence. But it is not enough not to falsely claim that you are neutral. Rude, chronic criticism of the other side is another bad way to puff yourself up.

3:30 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Bill Dalasio: I agree completely that "Fair and Balanced" is a Fox News sales slogan. But you're wrong that it's only in the advertising. For example, here is John Gibson opening a segment of his own show on Fox: "Then, we'll get fair and balanced reaction from Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairman." They don't just put a box around this theme and stash it in the corner, as the Times does with its slogan. They weave it into the broadcasts with many variations. And they routinely throw around the accusation that their competitors fall short of their standard.

For that matter Fox, and in fact most TV news desks, badly blur the line between content and promotion. It's hard to say what is or isn't the advertising; sometimes the whole show seems like advertising.

As for the New York Times, you are reading a great deal into seven words framed in a box in the corner. You could just as well argue that "All the news that's fit print" really means "We have a direct line from God and everything we say is infallible", and then turn around and slam them for claiming it. The truth is that they aren't responsible for your creative interpretations.

3:46 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

All right, I did a search and I'm not completely right about the Times' own interpretation of their slogan, "All the news that's fit to print". They explained what they meant in 1996 when they held a contest to find another slogan for their web site. They said, "In 1896, ... Adolph S. Ochs sought a way to epitomize the paper's goal of providing fair, accurate and thorough news coverage." So they don't just mean that the news should be comprehensive; they also want it to be fair.

But there is a crucial extra word here, the word goal. It's completely unreasonable for a news desk to pronounce that it's fair. It's completely reasonable for take that as a goal.

Besides, we weren't talking about fairness, we were talking about bias. I stand by my original point that the UCLA definition of bias — catering to the existing American political spectrum — is actually completely unfair. Americans would never change their minds about anything if the media always "balanced" the news to match what they already believe.

4:05 PM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Auld Pharte said...

My old Grandpappy used to say, "Never argue with a fool. It only lends credibility to his argument." (OK, maybe it wasn't my Grandpappy.)

I feel better now. The voices have stopped...

4:18 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Bill Dalasio said...

Greg Kuperberg,

I'm really reading no more into "All the News That's Fit to Print" than you are into Fox News' "Fair and Balanced". There really isn't much of a difference and that's my entire point. Neither is a reliable source of objective truth and both make claim to be. Really, your claim amounts to the fact that Fox News is a little more loose in throwing its taglines around - that they're better advertisers. Finally, I hope for your credibility that you're not trying to claim with a straight face that the Times doesn't disparage other sources of news.

4:33 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Bill Dalasio: I wouldn't say that the Times never disparages other sources of news. I can see that it has never disparaged Instapundit, but it does sometimes disparage Fox News, for example. Just not very often.

Actually one of the biggest targets of the New York Times' criticism is the New York Times. They pay a public editor who usually criticizes the newspaper in his biweekly column. That's a reasonable rule to live by: Criticize your competitors no more than you criticize yourself.

I don't know that any TV news channel lives by that rule. Certainly not Fox News. Maybe PBS does. It's one of the many reasons that I don't own a television.

4:56 PM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all notice that lacking a television does not stop you from pontificating on the subject, sir.

Perhaps you should think on that.

7:36 PM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Folks, please remember that Our Professor Kuperberg likes to argue for its own sake, and has a history of darting and weaving when his own inconsistencies and misstatements are pointed out.

At the same time, I like to see debate---I often find things I can learn. But when (as someone said a while back) it sounds like "The Argument Room" from a Monty Python sketch, I don't see the point.

Personally, I don't care to argue with the gentleman, who seems to have a great deal of spare time in academics I do not enjoy.

I just hate to see debate become argument.

"Eric Blair"

7:51 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

greg, I salute you for trying to tackle the whole program here. Here is my disagreement.

Bias can be measured by any number of proxies, but it is difficult to measure directly on a consistent basis. It can be measured at the level of the single event, as one reads an article and picks apart emotion-laden or slanted words, or compares similar events reported differently, as with Sandy Berger. But when one tries to define what is being measured, to repeat the experiment, it is difficult to pin down. Proxies are intelligent way to try and get at a tendency.

Other proxies used to measure political leanings have been party registration, use of high-impact words such as "extremist," counting up negative versus positive stories on a subject or individual, comparing the prominence and length of similar stories about different parties, questionnaires revealing journalist values, and how consistently one side's views are illustrated with graphs versus the others.

Not one of these methods gives you an infallible "aha! bias of 12.37%!" answer, especially in a single study. Each of the methods touches down somewhere in the attitude/bias/expression cluster. The salient point, to my mind, is that each of these proxies has yielded the same result. I have a bookmark folder of media bias studies online that contains 30 entries, and I don't even go looking for them by reading the bias measuring sites. I just pop 'em in when I run across 'em.

Whatever measurement you try, the MSM leans left, and it leaks into the writing and context. If you don't like citation as a proxy, the others yield the same result.

A journalist could lean one way on an issue and still do a fair story. Some do. From what I read, it seems that Tim Russert does that. But when an entire industry leans one way politically, the likelihood that all of them will be consistently unbiased drops to zero. Journalists could be opinionated but fair. They aren't.

Conservatives and libertarians have long had the subjective opinion that the standard news outlets slant stories against them. We have found that making the individual comparisons between stories, or fisking each article, has not been persuasive, even when the evidence is compelling. There always seems to be some excuse -- sometimes a reasonable one -- why the compared stories are not equivalent. These proxy methods are an attempt to quantify what we see as obvious.

8:23 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

Second point, greg.

You are correct that whatever the center of American opinion is is not a hard center of anything concrete. It moves daily, it differs from state to state and country to country. It is a convenient starting point. I will give you an even better example than your creation-evolution axis. If you show a blank world map to people on the street and ask "Where is Afghanistan, anyway?" they will point to stuff all over the map. A significant minority will point to Australia, and the geographic average would locate that country in SE Asia. That does not mean that Afghanistan is in fact in SE Asia.

Other "centers" have been attempted with attitudes on specific issues like abortion, taxation, or the Bill of Rights. There are problems with this as well. For you, there are even greater problems, as it would locate the center even farther to the right. Good opinion writing tries to take the whole question of "center" out of the picture. People attempt to demonstrate not that their view is not average, but that it is in fact, correct. Statistics and counterstatistics are cited in an attempt to reveal what is really happening, or alternatively, historical parallels are drawn to project likely consequences.

This is certainly more useful than knowing where the center is. And this is also where the alternative media is absolutely crushing the MSM. The economic analysis of the major outlets is regularly torn apart as misleading -- and always in the same direction.

As to politeness and criticism between the MSM and the alternative media, I think you are correct. The alternative media goes after, and is more critical of the MSM than vice versa. But the proxy you use isn't very helpful. The MSM does not deign to mention its new competition, because they rightly recognise that it gives it free advertising. Their current strategy is to ignore. See what problems there are in finding a good proxy?

So if I were to be devious, I could ask you to give evidence that the alternative media is less polite or more biased, then just knock down every proxy you put forth.

8:43 PM, December 20, 2005  
Anonymous Eric Blair said...

Since AVI (since you are not an idiot, I will just make your name into an acronym, okay?) brings it up instead of just our favorite verbal pugilist, Our Professor Kuperberg, let me say a couple of words about the Evolution-Creationism debate, as a biologist (since that is what I do for a living).

We never get to see the polling questions, folks. Or seldom. Let me overlay something that all American seem to love: the perception of fairness. I don't find many Europeans championing that concept, but most Americans aspire to the label of being fair.

So anything that states that it is providing "equal time" looks great to Americans. Even if it isn't. The "ideal" seems attractive.

Let's turn the creationism debate around a little. If you were to ask Americans if they wanted the Southern Baptist view of creation by God taught in the science classes of every school, what do you think the same cohort previously polled in favor of "equal time" would say?

"NO!" of course.

Now let's add the sad state of science education in this country....both in terms of curriculum and in terms of teacher preparation to understand and transmit the molecular underpinnings of biology. Evolution is NOT easy to understand and explain, truthfully.

Incidentally, I mean no disrespect to high school science teachers---it is among the toughest, least appreciated, underpaid, and yet most important jobs in America.

Top all this off with the strong anti-religious bias shown by most of my scientific colleagues. I will admit I don't understand atheism, which requires a leap of faith as large as any snake handler....but I do understand the various flavors of agnosticism.

Still...look through a microscope, or a telescope, and no one can be easily arrogant.

Yet Richard Dawkins and his friends out and out call people of faith "stupid." Repeatedly, and in print. Yep, THAT sure helps the debate.

And it continues to feed into this concept of fairness that Americans do and should treasure.

So I get very unhappy when I read arrogant rants about how ignorant Americans are for being religious, and even angrier when the true nature of the debate is hidden by the press and by pundits.

Do I want creationism taught in schools? Of course not. Creationism has no hypothesis testing. Intelligent Design is another form of least right now.

And evolution, despite what Dawkins and company insist, does NOT preclude a deity. Ask the Jesuits.

Nope, we are dealing with an arrogant group of intelligentsia who buy into that Red State/Blue State nonsense.

Anyway, that is far afield of where I started. The point is that most Americans don't really want religion in the classroom. They understand the real crux of that question: which religion??!! What they are responding to is a mixture of hubristic arrogance and media trouble makers (call them "mediots") who like distilling complicated ideas down into bumper stickers.

Sorry to rant on. But I am sick and tired of hearing how "most Americans in the Red States" think because of some slanted polling data.

Americans are smarter, fairer, and more decent than that.

"Eric Blair"

10:46 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

AVI: It certainly isn't true that every study concludes that there is a liberal media bias. I have seen studies with the opposite conclusion, but it would really be beside the point to expand on that, for two reasons. First, because I think that these studies are generally a crock and I don't care have many such studies have been conducted. Second, because if you want to believe in a liberal media bias, you could immediately dismiss any study that found a conservative bias to itself have an extreme liberal bias.

The crucial point is the one that you acknowledged: There is a difference between the political center and the truth. There is no such thing as being both fair and balanced, at least not balanced relative to the American political spectrum, because American political thinking often isn't fair. So what does this UCLA study, in fact these studies generally, look at? They generally measure what they can measure, namely whether the media coverage is to the left or right of center. They don't look at whether coverage is truthful or fair.

Probably the single thing that sticks in people's craws the most is the media's coverage of the war in Iraq. No public in any country has ever wanted to hear that they are losing a war. They have always blamed the media. Sometimes the media has been wrong about this; usually it hasn't. I don't think that the media is wrong this time. I think that Bush will continue to get the money that he wants for this war until the end of his term, but that public opinion will continue to chase the media on a downward slope.

Neither the mainstream media nor the blogosphere is a monolith and I'm not in a position to take a broad survey as to who is polite and who is rude. So I will restrict the discussion to two flagship examples, The New York Times and Instapundit. It is just not true that the Times has ignored Instapundit (or other blogs). On the contrary, it congratulated him in 1300 words. The Instapundit has not usually responded with comparable respect. (He did once, but that charity is long forgotten.) The Times is clever enough or mature enough to turn the other cheek.

11:07 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Eric Blair: It really seems to bother you that more Americans believe in Biblical creation than in unguided evolution. According to the most recent Gallup poll, 45% believe in the former and only 38% in the latter. To help you out, here is a description of the poll, complete with the exact wording of the question.

Nor can this poll be called a liberal media conspiracy. George Gallup Jr. (and before that his dad, George Gallup Sr.) wants these polls simply because he has equal faith in Jesus and in American public opinion. He has asked the same question in five other polls going back to 1982. For that matter, the poll results are only consistent with what President Bush said, that he wants alternatives to evolution taught in biology class.

You and I may believe that there are no alternatives to evolution to teach in biology class. But, according to the UCLA definition of bias, you and I have a secular liberal "bias".

Do creationists complain about liberal media bias on their issue? Yes. Again, according to the UCLA definition of bias, they have a strong case.

What I think is interesting is the way that some people ascribe every political frustration to a liberal ambush. If Bush and 45% of Americans are anti-evolution, it's not because the American Christian establishment picked an unnecessary fight with biologists. Rather, it's because the liberal media wants to make American Christians look bad.

By the same token, suppose that you are a staunchly libertarian psychologist with genuine compassion for the friendless and potentially dangerous mentally ill. Why are they out the streets? It's not because angry taxpayers resent the expense of public mental health care. Rather, it's because a prominent liberal who was assassinated 37 years ago did not realize how America would interpret his advice.

12:04 AM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Blair: please don't feed the troll. Notice the assumptions K. makes about you, then changes the subject in veering ways.

I read your post and your point was clear enough to me: there is a difference between being religious and teaching religion in the classroom. And MOST Americans would not want religion taught in the classroom, because of religious diversity issues and the concept you rightly bring up of fairness.

The rest of the K. business is a sign of a fellow with too much time on his hands.

I appreciate your input, anyway.

10:49 AM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Richard Brown said...

Dr. Kuperberg

Could you name for us one major recent story with
a partisan aspect for
which the reporting by the old major media
(ABC, CBS, NY TImes, Newsweek etc) was not biased
to the left?

I'd be surprised if you could.

3:35 PM, December 21, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Richard Brown: As I've been saying, it all depends on what you mean by "bias". If you just wanted a major story whose coverage isn't unfair to Republicans, then I could give you lots of examples. But I have the feeling that that kind of neutral ground won't satisfy you. So I will take a much narrower definition of "not biased to the left", namely stories that are outright biased against Democrats. Not just bad for Democrats, but outright wrong-minded.

I would compare the coverage of Democratic Representative Gary Condit to the coverage of Republican Representative Bill Janklow. Gary Condit talked to the police about his affair with Chandra Levy, who was murdered in Central Park, but he was never accused of any crime. Bill Janklow killed a man and it was completely his own fault. He was an extreme and chronic reckless driver and he often even pulled rank when he was stopped by police. He was convicted of manslaughter by a jury. He did not repent enough to either plead guilty or resign from office before the verdit. Nonetheless the media had colossally more coverage for Condit's situation than for Janklow's case. Even the New York Times devoted more space to Condit.

Remember, you only asked for one example. I could discuss other cases, but you can't fairly grouch that I only gave you what you asked for.

4:21 PM, December 21, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

I guess I was wrong. As you did not answer my original objections, greg, but answered some other things you liked better instead, I have to conclude that reasoning with you was not the proper approach.

6:55 PM, December 21, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

AVI: Your posts were pretty long. I you stated some complicated objections and I didn't know exactly what you wanted me to address. I still don't.

7:11 PM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The Big K. is only interested in playing word games and inflaming others. I think it is great that you are trying to engage him so that you can learn from him, and vice versa....but....

Someone drew the parallel between discussing issues with K. and wrestling with a pig: it wastes your time, gets you all muddy, and the pig likes it.

There are lots of people---lurkers like me and others---who enjoy your posts and learn from them, especially when your point of view differs from our own.

Don't get discouraged or angry by the verbal posturing of you know who.

10:08 PM, December 21, 2005  
Anonymous richard brown said...

I don't agree that the coverage of Democratic Representative Gary Condit is biased relative to the coverage of Republican Representative Bill Janklow. For example, how often was Condit called "liberal" or "left wing" in the stories covering him? Compare with how often Janklow was called "conservative" or "right-wing". A better comparision might be the treatment of Janlow by the press as compared to another politician that killed a third person - Edward Kennedy.

But even if this was an example, I asked you for a "recent story" of press bias towards republicans. You had to go back four years to find an example, weak as it is.

7:02 PM, December 22, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

Ah, they were long. That explains it then.

Greg, you raise good points. Then you refuse to discuss them. We await the coming of another.

7:38 PM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The authors of this particular study define "bias" as deviation from American public opinion."

Not exactly. The authors of this particular study define bias as deviation from the opinion of your average American member of Congress. They, therefore, assume that Congress' political spectrum matches the American public's political spectrum, in breadth and intensity.

I think this is a very specious assumption. In fact, I would submit (without evidence, yes, I apologize) that the average member of our current Congress is more conservative than the average American. Further, I would submit that a very large percentage of the American left is completely unrepresented in Congress. By any member.

--Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA (A Green Party member, "represented" in Congress by Jane Harman, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee).

10:12 PM, January 18, 2006  
Blogger selina said...


5:18 AM, March 14, 2009  
Blogger look said...


11:26 PM, March 14, 2009  
Blogger mmbox said...

本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區

6:26 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger mmbox said...

2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片

6:26 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger 平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信,

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦

1:16 AM, March 30, 2009  
Blogger nini said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

12:59 PM, April 05, 2009  
Blogger 123456 said...


1:56 AM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 吉澤明步QQ美女視訊秀 85cc免費影片aa影片下載城sex免費成人影片aaa片免費看短片美女視訊 sex383線上娛樂場av969 免費短片日本免費視訊aa影片下載城視訊網愛聊天室影音視訊交友 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇sex520免費影片aa免費影片下載城aio辣妺視訊 aio辣妹交友愛情館 jp成人影片aio交友愛情館馬子免費影片免費線上a片18成人85cc影城0204movie免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友s383視訊玩美女人34c高雄視訊聊天jp成人免費視訊辣妹 kk777視訊俱樂部xxxpandalive173影音視訊聊天室 sex520-卡通影片成人免費視訊 完美女人13060 免費視訊聊天sexy girl video movie辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室UT視訊美女交友視訊情色網百事無碼a片dvd線上aa片免費看18禁成人網ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊激情網愛聊天 情人小魔女自拍卡通aa片免費看夜未眠成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播拓網視訊交友視訊聊天室ggoo168論壇視訊辣妹love104影音live秀 美女show-live視訊情色yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室s383情色大網咖視訊aaa俱樂部台灣情色網無碼avdvdsexy diamond sex888入口Show-live視訊聊天室

2:29 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費 a 片aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部dodo豆豆聊天室sex520網路自拍美女聊天室天堂免費線上avdvd援交av080影片aa影片下載城aaa片免費看短片成人圖片區18成人avooogo2av免費影片sexdiy影城免費線上成人影片bonbonsex0951影片下載日本av女優sex888免費看影片免費視訊78論壇辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊dudu sex免費影片avdvd情色影片免費色咪咪影片網av080免費試看日本美女寫真集辣妹脫衣麻將視訊聊天室性福免費影片分享日本美女寫真集,kk視訊aio交友愛情館免費成人美女視訊bt論壇色情自拍免費a片卡通tw 18 net卡通18美少女圖色情漫畫777美女小護士免費 aa 片試看百分百成人情色圖片a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fuckedsexy girl video movie情色文學成人小說sex888免費看eyny 伊莉論壇sexdiy影城自拍情色0204movie免費影片aio免費aa片試看s383情色大網咖sexy girl video movie草莓牛奶AV論壇台灣論壇18禁遊戲區環球辣妹聊天室 90691拓網aio交友愛情館拓網學生族視訊777美女 sex888影片分享區hi5 tv免費影片aa的滿18歲卡通影片sex383線上娛樂場sexdiy影城免費a片線上觀看真人美女辣妹鋼管脫衣秀比基尼辣妹一夜情視訊aio交友愛情館

2:29 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊聊天室v6 0plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaaa片免費看影片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片

2:30 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger 徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿

11:29 PM, April 19, 2009  
Blogger aaa俱樂部 said...

A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室微風成人成人聊天室-情色視訊ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片aio交友愛情館免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天sex383線上娛樂場sex888sex520免費影片sex999免費影片情色貼圖情色視訊sexaaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費影片 - aa的滿18歲影片線上免費a片觀看sex520免費影片85cc免費影片免費 a 片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室-視訊日本免費視訊aaaaa片俱樂部aaaa 片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aa免費看aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片jp成人5278論壇 sex888影片分享區情色偷拍免費A片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費a片卡通sex888影片分享區aaa的滿18歲卡通影片

12:43 PM, April 29, 2009  
Blogger 1314 said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:09 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger 1122 said...

0401 影音視訊美女聊天室gogogirl 視訊美女gogogirl 視訊美女av080 toav080 to視訊美女視訊美女正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo正妹牆視訊交友高雄網正妹牆辣妺視訊辣妺視訊辣美眉173show影片辣美眉173show影片sex520免費影片sex520免費影片85cc免費影城85cc免費影城視訊交友90739視訊交友哈啦聊天室哈啦聊天室6k聊天室

10:09 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home