Unfairness — and Anti-Freedom — Doctrine

by Don Boudreaux on June 22, 2009

in Regulation, Seen and Unseen

Here’s a letter that I sent recently to the Los Angeles Times:

Seth Hill writes that “Every time I’m surfing channels and I happen by  mistake to land there [on the Fox News channel], I have to watch a commentary by [Newt] Gingrich or former Vice President Dick Cheney.  That channel makes me long for the days of the Fairness Doctrine”
(Letters, June 19).

Mr. Hill’s attitude is the seed of totalitarianism: unable to distinguish what he does voluntarily from what he is coerced into doing, he wants to use force to save himself from the annoyance of fleetingly encountering disagreeable ideas as he flips his channel changer – and to use force to hamper other persons’ access to those ideas.

There’s nothing fair about that.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Writing in the January 1997 issue of the Journal of Legal Studies, my GMU colleague Tom Hazlett and co-author David Sosa found that the Fairness Doctrine chilled public discourse.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

100 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 50 comments }

DAVE June 22, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Someone's going to say this so let me be the first:

CHANGE THE CHANNEL

BoscoH June 22, 2009 at 1:56 pm

I can feel for this guy. Every time I turn on NPR these days, I hear Russ Roberts.

Alex June 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm

i do understand your point.

fox news is still poisonous, propagandistic crap tho.

& mass-media is somewhat co-ercive, inherently.

ALSO:

broadcasters who use the public airwaves (assigned channels on the electromagnetic spectrum) fall under a slightly different category of free speech:

they are being given the PRIVILEGE of exclusive use of a part of the public broadcasting "airwaves".

in exchange they should be expected to:

a) pay (fair market value!) for their "right" of exclusive use of that broadcast frequency.

b) have a certain duty to behave RESPONSIBLY in the information they put out.

fox news, at best, walks a very fine line between news & propaganda to promote a right-wing agenda. their "standard of truth" seems to be: anything that won't actually get them sued for libel/slander.

i don't have a whole lot of sympathy for poor, innocent little fox news, being picked on; not considering the crap they pull, 24/365.

if fox news was doing this garbage on the internet and/or cable, but NOT on the public airwaves, fine, then "change-the-channel" would cover it.

BUT

fox is a BROADCAST network. they use assigned frequency "channels" on the PUBLIC "AIRWAVES", under an EXCLUSIVE LICENSE.

for the stuff they put out as "news" on those assigned frequency "channels", a higher standard of TRUTH, ACCURACY, & REPORTING THE WHOLE STORY should apply.

OR, they could give up their exclusive right of usage for those assigned frequencies, in the name of "freedom of speech" & a "free market of ideas", & allow other people, with other views, to have their say on those broadcast frequencies, as well.

it's not a free market of ideas, when you own the market, & control everything that is said there.

change-the-channel isn't good enough for exclusively-licensed EM-spectrum broadcasters, when there are only a LIMITED NUMBER of channels.

MWG June 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Wow Alex, You're very passionate about your disdain for Fox News… Please, tell us how you feel about MSNBC…

John June 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Hey Alex,
There are two knobs on the radio.
One changes the station, the other turns it off.
If you don't like what you hear I've got some advice for you.

Go play with your knobs.

Alex June 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm

follow up:

@ BoscoH

not liking NPR, or simply not agreeing with Russ Roberts is fine; that's freedom of opinion & free speech.

BUT

there is a HUGE difference in quality, accuracy, balance, intelligence, responsible reporting, etc…

between:

NPR & FoxNews

key point:

NPR differentiates between reporting the news, & giving editorial opinions.

NPR also makes a far greater good faith effort to provide a balance of editorial opinions.

FoxNews does NEITHER of these things.

it's kind of like comparing health food & junk food:

you are free to decide what you want to eat, & when; but if you can't tell the difference between health food & junk food, then you're in trouble!

:P

John V June 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Alex:

I'm assuming you're thinking that Fox's not differentiating is a problem because they have separate sorts of programing, which ought to be separated clearly. What is the difference between you, who can divine the different sorts of programing, from the common man, who is completely unable to do so? Or, do you think most people have enough sense to make these distinctions for themselves?

Neil Swanson June 22, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Shorter Alex:

I agree with NPR.

/end snark

As someone who actually spends much more time listening to NPR than Fox, I respectfully disagree with Alex. NPR seems to me to have a distinctive point of view, which is at least as far left of center as Fox is right of center. Given that Fox is one of the few broadcasters to present a right of center viewpoint, I think we can afford to allow them to exist.

Given that NPR is heavily subsidized by the government and duplicates the viewpoint of other outlets (albeit with a more sophisticated veneer), I am less passionate about the continued existence of NPR.

Regards,
Neil

S Andrews June 22, 2009 at 2:46 pm

I don't usually watch news on TV, but by mistake if I flip over to a Cable News Channel, I get disgusted easily with it within a minute or two. Alex gets agitated about Fox, rightly so, but his silence over MSNBC is deafening. You are likely to see a person with alternate political view much more often on O'Reilly Factor than countdown with Olbermann. Regardless of who appears, both shows are merely for entertainment.

John June 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Alex,
If you can't tell the difference between news and opinion on Fox, you've got a SERIOUS problem.

But that's not it. That's not it at all.

You want them silenced because they ask questions about things that you do not want to have questioned.

BoscoH June 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Alex, if you read the posting again, you'll see that Fox News Channel is the channel at issue. FNC is a cable channel, not a channel broadcast over the air. With those facts now in mind, your point?

Mikeikon June 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I find it funny when people who don't even know that Fox News is a cable channel rank on it.

I had a high school teacher who did that once.

Think for yourself!

Daniel Kuehn June 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm

I had someone tell me the other day that Fox is actual a fairly centrist channel, and everything else is far left. I don't think I have to elaborate on the source's personal politics.

Anyway – my point being that the people who rail against the fairness doctrine most, the guys on Fox news, are the same ones who think that EVERYONE else is uber-liberal. MSNBC is obviously very liberal (although at least they've got Morning Joe I suppose), and Fox is conservative. But I haven't noticed any of the other networks to be especially partisan… not that they don't have their partisans, but no particular view seems to dominate.

I agree 100% on the fairness doctrine… and I have to say I agree with it more along Don's lines (it's unconstitutional and inconsistent with individual liberty) than the Fox News lines (the mainstream media is already dominated by liberals!). I just think it's hugely ironic that Fox imagines this liberal bias, and yet liberals are the ones that want to reinstitute the fairness doctrine (not that nearly all liberals hold that view, obviously).

My advice: watch C-SPAN.

Daniel Kuehn June 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm

S Andrews -
RE: "You are likely to see a person with alternate political view much more often on O'Reilly Factor than countdown with Olbermann."

Yes, but I have to say, at least Olbermann doesn't scream at his guests. O'Reilly doesn't usually (there have been some good exceptions) bring people he disagrees with on to actually listen to their responses. One thing that bothers me about a lot of these pundits (Matthews is another good example on the MSNBC side) is the complete lack of basic human decency. If I ever achieved the stature to appear on one of those shows, I'd probably refuse. People are invited on just to be insulted and not given the chance to talk (unless you agree with them, I guess…).

John June 22, 2009 at 3:15 pm

My advice: watch C-SPAN.

Works better than melatonin.

Lee Kelly June 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Where I'm from, you need a license to own a television. It funds a bastion of left-wing propaganda, and producer of shows that private networks are willing to provide.

If you do not pay the license fee, then you may be fined or threatened with prison. The network in question even runs intimidating "advertisements" about how its henchmen know where you live, and have technology that can detect whether you have an unlicensed television in your home.

Oh, be thankful for Fox News!

BoscoH June 22, 2009 at 3:25 pm

@ BoscoH

not liking NPR, or simply not agreeing with Russ Roberts is fine; that's freedom of opinion & free speech.

OK, let me be the first the welcome Alex (the noob) to the blog. Dude, I was kidding.

Alex June 22, 2009 at 3:29 pm

actually i'm from canada, i don't follow msnbc at all; i know fox news & nrp from limited accquaintance.

(& i don't happen to agree with either foxnews or npr, please don't put words in my mouth :P )

again, the key point is:

with NPR you can tell the difference between when they are reporting the news, & when they are giving an opinion about it.

with FoxNews, (at least for political news) EVERYTHING IS OPINION; there is nothing like actual, objective "reporting" of the news; it's spin from start to finish. you're not getting "the news", you're getting foxnew's OPINION about the news.

scientific american ran a piece a while ago (can't remember which issue, but say sometime in the last couple of years, or so), comparing the quality, accuracy, etc. of news reporting by different major news services. Foxnews was ABYSMALLY POOR; not just far below average, they were THE WORST @ reporting news stories in an accurate & complete manner.

& AGAIN, i don't object to foxnews being a crap, propagandistic news service; i object to their spreading their misinformation over the PUBLIC BROADCAST SPECTRUM. there are only a LIMITED NUMBER OF CHANNELS available on the public airwaves, & NONE of the broadcasters that use them are actually paying FAIR MARKET VALUE for the privilege. it is not too much to ask that they be held to a quality standard in how they report the news.

re: "guest" points of view of Foxnews. that's kind of like inviting a democratic party guest speaker to a rebublican party convention; the chances of being given a fair chance to express an opposing point of view = 0

i don't understand why anyone in their right minds would accept such an invitation.

…well maybe i should rephrase that:

i don't understand why anyone NOT in the "right" mind would accept.

:P

(i seem to be mostly repeating the same positions here, with minor rephrasings. i don't think i'll post anything more on this thread, unless there are exciting new developments. i hate when my writing starts to feel stale, or recycled.)

MWG June 22, 2009 at 3:31 pm

"You are likely to see a person with alternate political view much more often on O'Reilly Factor than countdown with Olbermann.""
-S Andrews

"Yes, but I have to say, at least Olbermann doesn't scream at his guests."
-DK

Why would Olbermann scream at people he agrees with?

MWG June 22, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Alex, perhaps you should go read BoscoH's 2:51:25 PM post again…

Daniel Kuehn June 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm

MWG -
Exactly. It is the one advantage of bringing on only people you agree with. Olbermann is the Glenn Beck of MSNBC – broad prognostications and guests that confirm your prejudices (I'm sorry, Beck, but you're not doing real analysis if your experts on the economy are always Gerald Caliente and Peter Schiff). O'Reilly's counterpart is Chris Matthews – inviting someone on to scream at them. I prefer the version that keeps my eardrums intact, and I end up watching both Beck and Olbermann, mostly for entertainment value.

Lee Kelly -
RE: "Oh, be thankful for Fox News!"

Hmmm… let's say I'm thankful that it's possible to have Fox News and leave it at that :)

How does this license fee work? I mean – is it just something that in the U.S. ends up being part of the cable bill? I'm having trouble figuring out if I should be outraged for you or not, because I don't really know how it works in the UK. Are you just paying for TV? That doesn't seem problematic to me… the concern for me would be if there's actually some sort of state content control or broadcast ownership.

S Andrews June 22, 2009 at 3:43 pm

there are only a LIMITED NUMBER OF CHANNELS available on the public airwaves,

What is public airwaves? Why only a few channels?

& NONE of the broadcasters that use them are actually paying FAIR MARKET VALUE for the privilege.

Who owns it? Who should be receiving the payment? Why do you think they have the rightful ownership? If they pay more, will you be okay with their "propaganda"? What is the fair market value? who determines it? Is there a market for these airwaves? If not, how can we determine price?

S Andrews June 22, 2009 at 3:43 pm

closing block quotes

Alex June 22, 2009 at 3:44 pm

*…not in the "right" frame of mind…

Alex June 22, 2009 at 3:57 pm

re: fox news

i'm not a us resident; i understand that there is a foxnews cable channel, but my understanding is that their foxnews service is also broadcast as a part of their "network" programming?

i'm sure i've seen foxnews programming on the fox network, as broadcast from US tv stations near the cdn border.

re: foxnews asks questions, etc…

the only questions foxnews really asks are ones where they can shape the answer to suit their "message"

if you take the typical foxnews coverage of a political story, dissect it, & compare their reporting with an objective summary of events, or say with an aggregate of coverage from other news services, the main question you get is:

what happened to all the stuff foxnews left out (or "spun" out)?

MWG June 22, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Touche DK, the Olbermann/Beck comparison is probably more valid, but O'Reilly and Olbermann compete in the same time slot, which is why I think people tend to compare the two.

I use to watch Matthews regularly about 10 years ago. I stopped for a while, then saw some of his stuff during the election. He's changed a lot.

Daniel Kuehn June 22, 2009 at 4:01 pm

MWG -
And I have to say there's a reason why all these people are on the air. They speak to people, and they sell. It's good to get an angle on stories – I think that's important. I just wish they'd all challenge themselves a little more and realize that while angles and perspectives are important, the vast majority of what they say is sound bites.

BoscoH June 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Oh, I get it now. Alex is complaining about Radio Free Canada. Yes, our government actively pumps in Fox News Channel disguised as regular network programming so that fewer Canadians will come down to take advantage of our semi-private health care and steal jobs in Hollywood. Ironically, this program was concocted by Mike Meyers.

BoscoH June 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm

@DK: UK TV License FAQ. They aren't making this up. The money purportedly goes to the BBC so they can make quality programs like Bill and Ben, the Flowerpot Men.

Seth June 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Great letter Don. The second paragraph addressed well a common cause of two sides talking past eachother that I often confront in discussions with friends and family. That is, people don't often realize their own totalitarian tendencies.

It usually goes something like this, "Don't you think we ought to do something for those people who invested their careers at that company and now have nothing?"

Show any hint of disagreement and you're seen as cold-hearted. The conservation doesn't advance from there.

I've learned to say something like, "Sure. That sounds good. Where can I send my voluntary contribution? I'm sure you have some idea since you are so passionate about it. But, I don't want to force others to contribute just because you and I think it's a good idea. After all, what if they want to force us to do something we don't think is a good idea?"

That seems to get them to realize we're debating the merits of forced and voluntary actions, instead of which of us is less compassionate.

Daniel Kuehn June 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm

BoscoH -
OK, so it just funds public broadcasting? It's not like BBC is the only thing on in the UK is it?

This seems to get at more essential "role of government" questions. I don't think a fee to fund public broadcasting quite amounts to a threat to free media (I know, I know – nobody made that specific accusation). Then again, my great grandfather helped found the public broadcasting station in the Washington metropolitan area, so perhaps I'm biased.

BoscoH June 22, 2009 at 4:55 pm

The BBC is still a much bigger presence in the UK than any of the major networks (let alone PBS) here. The TV tax is roughly $200 per color TV per year. That does not pay for the satellite or cable to get the signal. If PBS did that here, there would be violence.

The funny thing about where this discussion has gone is that more Americans will tune in tonight to find out if Jon and Kate are getting divorced than will watch the nightly network news (ABC, CBS, NBC) or watch any of the cable news/talk shows. I would bet that Jon and Kate beats the "news" tonight among the better educated, more intelligent, and wealthy. And I think that's absolutely wonderful.

Daniel Kuehn June 22, 2009 at 4:58 pm

BoscoH -
Sure – I don't mean to say that it's comparable or that there isn't still an issue. I just think it's a fundamentally different question from the content-control issue of the fairness doctrine.

ThomasL June 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm

I've never been prouder of any comment I've made than this: I have no idea who Jon and Kate are.

LowcountryJoe June 22, 2009 at 5:31 pm

>>Given that NPR is heavily subsidized by the government and duplicates the viewpoint of other outlets (albeit with a more sophisticated veneer), I am less passionate about the continued existence of NPR.<<

Great point, Neil!

And, given that NPR is heavily subsidized by government, does anybody suppose that they'd have any sympathies to the ideological point of view of thiose who wish to limit the size and scope of the federal government?

MnM June 22, 2009 at 6:41 pm

they are being given the PRIVILEGE of exclusive use of a part of the public broadcasting "airwaves".

This argument has always fallen a little flat with me (that is, as justification for the Fairness Doctrine). They aren't being extended a privilege of any sort. They're paying for a license. Big difference.

What are "public airwaves"? Why should they be regulated? Isn't the air the carries my voice "public air"? Should that air be regulated? If not, what the distinction? Who gets to decide what "fair" is? Does that person's definition of "fair" trump the Constitution?

brotio June 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Of course, only MSNBC tilts Left! Everyone remembers the time when CBS News used those forged documents about Bill Clinton being AWOL in order to try and help Bob Dole get elected. Don't they?

RG June 22, 2009 at 8:44 pm

I've got to defend Beck here. Beck and Olbermann are not two sides of the same coin. Olbermann is a Democrat hack. He agrees with all democrat positions and actions. He doesn't have a philosophy. He just recites the party line. Beck has a philosophy. It might be right or wrong, but he believes in coherent ideas. Incidentally he believes in the Constitution with a little religious fundamentalism thrown in. If he disagrees with democrats, he let's you know. If he disagrees with republicans (and he often does) he lets you know that too. He's pretty closely aligned with Judge Napolitano except for the religious fundamentalism. It seems like a lot of people are making accusations and similes about personalities they aren't that familiar with. As a student who has been unemployed and at home working on my thesis for the last 6 months I have gotten VERY familiar with the commentators on cable news and talk radio.

I don't mean to defend Fox News here. I think they have a very limited amount of watchable programming, and since the Great American Political Philosopher Alan Colmes left, their commentators lean exclusively to the right, but there ARE unbiased news reporters. Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Brit Hume (when he was on), even Shepard Smith are very objective. Their job is to report the news and they do that VERY well. I would put those guys up against any of the cable OR network anchors. Shep has even espoused some more left leaning opinions in his less guarded moments. I get annoyed fairly easily with people opining when they obviously don't have the knowledge to make an informed statement. If the readers of this blog think that government regulation is harmful and the free market, while not perfect, is the best path to prosperity, Fox News, in a roundabout way is the ONLY network that that has any programming that even approaches that point of view. Sure, their number one goal is to get ratings, and O'Reilly and Hannity are good at that, but Neil Cavuto, Judge Napolitano, and Glenn Beck are fighting the good fight. There's a lot of crap, but give me break. Check out Judge Napolitano's show "Freedom Watch" online Wednesdays at 2:00. Do it.

Gil June 22, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Glenn Beck fight the good fight?!?! *spit take*

vidyohs June 22, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Oh crap guys,

Stop making kissy face, Alex is clearly an idiot who wandered over here from democraticunderground.com. Have you ever seen such off the wall mindless kneejerk leftist bullsh.t in your life…….oh well I forgot muirduck.

vidyohs June 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm

Disingenious Kuehn,

Once again you mark yourself as much a leftist as is muirduck, just a little slicker.

"But I haven't noticed any of the other networks to be especially partisan… not that they don't have their partisans, but no particular view seems to dominate.

I agree 100% on the fairness doctrine… and I have to say I agree with it more along Don's lines (it's unconstitutional and inconsistent with individual liberty) than the Fox News lines (the mainstream media is already dominated by liberals!). I just think it's hugely ironic that Fox imagines this liberal bias, and yet liberals are the ones that want to reinstitute the fairness doctrine (not that nearly all liberals hold that view, obviously).

My advice: watch C-SPAN.

Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Jun 22, 2009 3:08:42 PM"

You've never noticed NBC, ABC, CBS, and a multitude of other channels such as PBS, Disney, are as leftist as Marx at a minimum?

You've never noticed that the NY Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, LA Time, and a plethora of others are leftist to the core?

Have you never noticed that the radio stations that lean left far far outnumber those that have the right wing slant.

Jesus Christ, kid, don't you ever listen to the words of the songs most radio stations play? My God, kid, gimme seems to be every second word in songs….well maybe the third word.

You honestly thought you could say this:
"I agree 100% on the fairness doctrine… and I have to say I agree with it more along Don's lines (it's unconstitutional and inconsistent with individual liberty) than the Fox News lines (the mainstream media is already dominated by liberals!). I just think it's hugely ironic that Fox imagines this liberal bias,"

You're actually ballsy enough to say you thing Fox news and right wingers "imagine" that there is a liberal bias in the media?

You are truly a disingenious piece of work and a Marx wannabe.

vidyohs June 22, 2009 at 11:17 pm

The Spike. by ARNAUD and ROBERT de BORCHGRAVE (Author)

Is there a leftwing bias in the media? Read it. The bias isn't new.

vidyohs June 22, 2009 at 11:23 pm

The old school MSM hates Fox and Clear Channel with the same passion that a gaggle of HS Cheerleaders hate the new girl that guys can't take their eyes off of.

It is actually comical to listen to, or read the rants against Fox and Clear Channel, while at the same time calling for the fairness doctrine to be reinstated.

Will Fox news be allowed into the Whitehouse to film the ABC free propaganda hours for Obama's health plan. Suppose those ABC reporters and reporteretts will be unbiased?

Daniel Kuehn June 23, 2009 at 9:06 am

brotio -
Definitely other channels have had their moments. What I think I said earlier is that there's no persistent obvious bias the way there is with MSNBC and Fox. Obviously journalists in general are more liberal. I just don't see that coming through in any consistent way in the other stations. I'm sure you could name many instances of it.

RG -
Beck isn't mainstream Republican in the way that Olbermann is mainstream Democrat – but he is every bit as much the unthinking ideologue. You can call it a "philosophy" if you want, but I personally throw them in the same boat.

On Fox – definitely there's good reporting that goes on. Chris Wallace is probably my single favorite journalist on TV right now. I'd completely disagree with you on Brit Hume, but the others you've mentioned – Smith, Baier, etc. are all good as well. When I say MSNBC is blantantly liberal and Fox is blantantly conservative, I don't mean they only show pundits and I don't mean that's necessarily a bad thing – I agree with you – I'm glad Fox is there.

vidyohs -

1. Please, please, please stop calling me disingenuous

2. Consider the possibility that you're my friend who thinks Fox is centrist and everyone else is far left… since this is a spectrum of sorts, it may be that your reference point is so out of the mainstream, that that's driving your view of very middle of the road outfits. As I said – of course journalists are more liberal than average. And of course we can point to instances where that comes out. But the idea that there is a bias that consistently emerges, I think, is something completlely different and it doesn't really happen except in a handful of venues.

3. Are you really getting on this ABC bandwagon too? Come on! Fox DID air from the White House during the Bush administration. There's no editorial control. It will be a cushy backdrop. It's not unprecedented. It's not a big deal. Nobody made a fuss about it when this happened with Bush. We should be glad that private news agencies are allowed to report from the halls of power – in some countries they're shut out and there is no coverage.

Daniel Kuehn June 23, 2009 at 9:07 am

*that you're LIKE my friend who…

John June 23, 2009 at 9:22 am

Please, please, please stop calling me disingenuous

Then quit being disingenuous!

Daniel Kuehn June 23, 2009 at 9:24 am

John -
You and vidyohs seem to be confusing "disingenuous" with "not agreeing with John and vidyohs".

I suggest you grow out of that quickly. In the meantime, I'd prefer to comment on this blog without the ad hominem attacks. I certainly don't extend them to you.

John June 23, 2009 at 9:42 am

No Dan, you seem to be the one who is confused.

You will say that you agree with something, then explain how you are against it.
Or you will say you disagree with something, then proceed to defend it.

Disingenuous – not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness.

If you want vid to stop calling you Disingenuous Kuehn, then stop being disingenuous.

Daniel Kuehn June 23, 2009 at 9:50 am

John -
I can't disagree with the fairness doctrine and think that Fox's complaining is overstated?

How exactly does that work, John? Is there a complete menu of wholly unrelated ideas that I sign off on to not be disingenuous?

It seems to me that the merits of the fairness doctrine and the merits of Fox's claims are completely divorced from each other, and yet these are the grounds on which vidyohs has called me disingenuous.

Perhaps I am confused. Maybe you can explain it to me. Explain to me why I have to agree that the media has an enormous liberal bias if I want to non-disingenuously oppose the fairness doctrine – because I don't get it.

John June 23, 2009 at 9:56 am

Perhaps I am confused.
Yes you are.
Maybe you can explain it to me.
I'd rather watch you make a fool of yourself.
It's quite entertaining, especially because you haven't a clue.

Previous post:

Next post: