Liberal Media Bias

[Dos Equis]

Alan Dershowitz: How CNN misled its viewers
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/27/19

In our hyperpartisan world, in which so many people watch only media that will give them news with which they agree, CNN viewers understandably expected the Mueller report to find overwhelming evidence that President Trump colluded, conspired with and is beholden to Russia. After all, that is what they have been hearing for many months.

Pundit after pundit, commentator after commentator, host after host already had made up their minds: President Trump was guilty and should be indicted, impeached or removed under the 25th Amendment. To be sure, CNN presented the occasional dissenting view, but it was almost always from right-wing Republicans who viewers could easily discount.

During the first several months of the investigation, CNN viewers also heard my more nuanced, more centrist views. As a liberal Democrat who strongly supported Hillary Clinton, I had some credibility when I raised questions about the certainty with which other CNN guests had declared Trump guilty. I introduced constitutional analysis regarding the allegations of obstruction of justice, arguing that — regardless of Trump’s intentions — he could not be charged with obstruction based exclusively on exercising his constitutional authority under Article II. This includes the power to fire any member of the executive branch.

Viewers enjoyed my feisty debates with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and asked for more. Host Anderson Cooper enjoyed sparring with me, as did hosts Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon. CNN viewers benefited from evaluating my viewpoints against those of other guests and hosts.

But then, suddenly, I was banned from CNN.

Over the past half year or so, I have never once been asked to appear on a CNN program. Initially I wondered why, and I asked some of my friends at the network. They were evasive and studiously avoided any direct answer to my question.

Then I received off-the-record information that an order had come from the very top: CNN executive Jeff Zucker didn’t want me on CNN any more. My centrist, nuanced perspective was anathema to CNN’s emerging brand as the anti-Trump network.

I continued to be invited on other networks, including NBC, ABC, MSNBC and Fox. But not CNN.

Being perceived as a Trump legal defender, even though I publicly disagreed with many of his policies, was a cardinal sin for a liberal Democrat. It would confuse CNN’s viewers at a time when one had to be either for or against Trump. It was as if I were a Red Sox fan on the Yankee network. Today, everyone has to pick a team — Trump or anti-Trump — and picking the side of the Constitution and civil liberties just doesn’t do it.

As my mother said to me when I defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., back in the ’70s: “You’re either for the Nazis or the Jews.” When I tried to explain that I was for the First Amendment, not the Nazis, my mother replied: “I’m your mother. Don’t give me that legal stuff. You should be for the Jews.”

My mother, smart as she was, didn’t go to college. The CNN brass did. They should know better, but for them the bottom line is what counts. And the bottom line grew bigger when CNN began to be seen as the anti-Trump network. The brass didn’t want their viewers’ minds to be confused by the law or the facts. Trump was guilty; that’s all they needed to know.

This simplistic perspective insults the intelligence and open-mindedness of many CNN viewers who email me, saying that they miss my contrarian views. But the CNN brass apparently prefer the absolute certainty of, say, attorney Michael Avenatti — “I guarantee Trump will not serve out his term” — to my calibrated legal analysis.


Well, my calibrated views turned out to be largely right, while CNN’s wishful thinking turned out to be largely wrong. That isn’t because I’m smarter than the CNN execs. It’s because I don’t allow my political preferences to substitute for objective legal analysis.

Jeff Zucker has said that he is “entirely comfortable” with CNN’s coverage. Of course he and his company’s shareholders are comfortable: Their one-sided coverage earned the network lots of money.

But they shouldn’t be comfortable with the quality of their on-air performance. They should review the footage and require those who were demonstrably wrong to listen to how badly they misled their viewers.

John Brennan, the former director of the CIA, has acknowledged that he may have based his mistaken assessments and predictions on “bad information,” but what he failed to say was that he and CNN were often the source of this bad information that led viewers to have false expectations.

So let’s hope that CNN, and other media that got it wrong, will reassess their approach to divisive, controversial issues. Their viewers are entitled to hear contrary views, even those that make them uncomfortable.

Jeff Zucker should be uncomfortable, rather than smug, about what his network did — and didn’t do. It did not well serve its viewers, or the American public.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436059-alan-dershowitz-how-cnn-misled-its-viewers

[Dos Equis]

Democrats Claim ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Media Repeat It 386 Times
By Bill D'Agostino | May 14, 2019

Evidently Democrats need only utter the words "constitutional crisis" for the media to report it as fact.

Watch cable “news” these days, and you’ll surely see talking heads parroting the Democratic line that the Trump administration’s noncompliance with House Committee subpoenas amounts to a constitutional crisis. While a small handful of analysts and guest legal scholars disagree, TV hosts continue to push the idea uncritically, with some even urging the alleged crisis be used as grounds for impeachment.

MRC analysts looked at all coverage on broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC) and liberal cable (CNN, MSNBC) networks from May 8 to 12, finding 386 utterances of the term “constitutional crisis” by hosts, analysts, or guest journalists. This count did not include cases in which the term was used by political partisans, such as members of Congress, former administration officials, or Democratic and Republican strategists.

Watch the video below for a glimpse at the media’s breathless coverage of the supposed “constitutional crisis”:


After House Judiciary Chairman Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi alleged the existence of a constitutional crisis, cable hosts quickly treated their declarations as established fact. On May 8, the same day that Nadler first used the term, CNN’s Don Lemon began his show with the grandiose proclamation: “Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like? Well, open your eyes.”

Others kept their powder dry until Pelosi repeated Nadler’s words the following morning. For example, on May 11, MSNBC’s David Gura kicked off his show with the line: “Constitutional crisis is no longer a hypothetical.”

Just hours after Nadler’s claim, a few impatient reporters were already pushing for impeachment. “If we are in a constitutional crisis, why not pursue impeachment; why are you resisting?” CNN senior Congressional correspondent Manu Raju asked during the 6 pm EDT hour of The Situation Room, May 8.

On May 10, CNN’s Erin Burnett asked indignantly: “If this is a constitutional crisis, how can Democrats not move forward with impeachment hearings?”

Despite all the hubbub from journalists, some lawyers and analysts were unconvinced that the Democrats’ claims rose beyond the level of political rhetoric. The most prominent example was former FBI Director James Comey, who disappointed Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall event on May 9. “Are we in a constitutional crisis as Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say we are?” Cooper inquired, to which Comey replied, “I actually don’t think so.”

CNN correspondent Laura Jarrett was also unconvinced: “For Nadler to say we’re in a constitutional crisis? Well, we’re not. The courts haven’t even intervened yet,” she argued during the May 8 edition of The Situation Room.

But these disagreements were confined to panel discussions (or in Comey’s case, special coverage). Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC’s regular reporting has included no mention of the critics who disagree that such a crisis exists. Instead they've continued merrily along with their breathless reporting of the “constitutional crisis” they’ve been agitating since Trump took office.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2019/05/14/democrats-claim-constitutional-crisis-media-repeat-it-386-times

[Skeletor]

Democrats Claim ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Media Repeat It 386 Times
By Bill D'Agostino | May 14, 2019

Evidently Democrats need only utter the words "constitutional crisis" for the media to report it as fact.

Watch cable “news” these days, and you’ll surely see talking heads parroting the Democratic line that the Trump administration’s noncompliance with House Committee subpoenas amounts to a constitutional crisis. While a small handful of analysts and guest legal scholars disagree, TV hosts continue to push the idea uncritically, with some even urging the alleged crisis be used as grounds for impeachment.

MRC analysts looked at all coverage on broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC) and liberal cable (CNN, MSNBC) networks from May 8 to 12, finding 386 utterances of the term “constitutional crisis” by hosts, analysts, or guest journalists. This count did not include cases in which the term was used by political partisans, such as members of Congress, former administration officials, or Democratic and Republican strategists.

Watch the video below for a glimpse at the media’s breathless coverage of the supposed “constitutional crisis”:


After House Judiciary Chairman Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi alleged the existence of a constitutional crisis, cable hosts quickly treated their declarations as established fact. On May 8, the same day that Nadler first used the term, CNN’s Don Lemon began his show with the grandiose proclamation: “Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like? Well, open your eyes.”

Others kept their powder dry until Pelosi repeated Nadler’s words the following morning. For example, on May 11, MSNBC’s David Gura kicked off his show with the line: “Constitutional crisis is no longer a hypothetical.”

Just hours after Nadler’s claim, a few impatient reporters were already pushing for impeachment. “If we are in a constitutional crisis, why not pursue impeachment; why are you resisting?” CNN senior Congressional correspondent Manu Raju asked during the 6 pm EDT hour of The Situation Room, May 8.

On May 10, CNN’s Erin Burnett asked indignantly: “If this is a constitutional crisis, how can Democrats not move forward with impeachment hearings?”

Despite all the hubbub from journalists, some lawyers and analysts were unconvinced that the Democrats’ claims rose beyond the level of political rhetoric. The most prominent example was former FBI Director James Comey, who disappointed Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall event on May 9. “Are we in a constitutional crisis as Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say we are?” Cooper inquired, to which Comey replied, “I actually don’t think so.”

CNN correspondent Laura Jarrett was also unconvinced: “For Nadler to say we’re in a constitutional crisis? Well, we’re not. The courts haven’t even intervened yet,” she argued during the May 8 edition of The Situation Room.

But these disagreements were confined to panel discussions (or in Comey’s case, special coverage). Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC’s regular reporting has included no mention of the critics who disagree that such a crisis exists. Instead they've continued merrily along with their breathless reporting of the “constitutional crisis” they’ve been agitating since Trump took office.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2019/05/14/democrats-claim-constitutional-crisis-media-repeat-it-386-times

The repeated use of the term reminded me of this:



Of course it would not have been a Constitutional crisis but apparently in Kohn's mind it was and it was also "straightforward".

[Dos Equis]

The repeated use of the term reminded me of this:



Of course it would not have been a Constitutional crisis but apparently in Kohn's mind it was and it was also "straightforward".

Twisted mofos. 

[Dos Equis]

81 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List
JANUARY 22, 2019 BY SHARYL ATTKISSON
Updated July 21, 2019
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

[Dos Equis]

Not surprised by any of this.

PART 1: CNN Insider Blows Whistle on Network President Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS
 by Eric Spracklen October 14, 2019
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/10/14/exposecnnpart1/

[Dos Equis]

Not surprised by any of this.

PART 1: CNN Insider Blows Whistle on Network President Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS
 by Eric Spracklen October 14, 2019
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/10/14/exposecnnpart1/

[Dos Equis]

Jan Brewer slams media ‘hypocrites’ for praising Pelosi finger-pointing, scolding her for pointing at Obama
By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday took aim at “hypocrites” in the media who she says have branded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a hero for pointing her finger at President Trump -- despite calling Brewer a racist for doing something similar to former President Obama.

"The news media hails @SpeakerPelosi as a hero for pointing her finger at @POTUS @realDonaldTrump but when I stood up to @BarackObama I was vilified as rude and racist," she tweeted.

. . .





https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jan-brewer-slams-media-hypocrites-for-praising-pelosi-finger-pointing-after-scolding-her-for-doing-the-same-to-obama

[SOMEPARTS]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/michelle-obama-bares-abs-sports-bra-gym-195451063.html


 


“It doesn’t always feel good in the moment,” she said of her workout. “But after the fact, I’m always glad I hit the gym.”

Her followers were impressed, judging by the flood of bulging bicep emojis in the comments section.

“Come through queen,” read one comment.

“You put me to shame,” added an admirer, while one commenter added “Come on mama!”

“So proud of you Michelle,” another fan wrote. “I’m going to plank because of this post.”

Others hailed her as an “inspirational goddess” — though many also joked that unlike the former FLOTUS, they spent their ‘Self-Care Sunday” sleeping in.

[Dos Equis]

Impeachment Frenzy: TV Networks Blast Trump With 96% Negative News
By Rich Noyes | November 12, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-nets-aim-destroy-trump-96-negative-news

[Dos Equis]

Blatant. 

MRC's research also found that network impeachment news coverage was:

Heavily based on "secret leaks from anonymous sources." Out of 172 news reports, 59% relied on unnamed sources about the impeachment probe, slightly higher than a late-October check of coverage, which found 57% of the impeachment reports used secret sources.

Overwhelmingly negative on the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — though coverage of the U.S. mission to kill him was "mostly positive" — and "witheringly negative coverage" of Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria.

Baghdadi's death received only 45 minutes on the news programs, with the troop withdrawal getting 121 minutes — and 98% of those reports were negative.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/impeachment-vote-secret-ballot/2019/11/12/id/941291/

[Primemuscle]

Impeachment Frenzy: TV Networks Blast Trump With 96% Negative News
By Rich Noyes | November 12, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-nets-aim-destroy-trump-96-negative-news

I am tired of being blasted with all the redundant impeachment noise. It does seem like this is all the media talks about. Trump and others are doing everything they can to keep this stirred up. Regardless, I intend to watch broadcasts from the open hearing testimonies.

[SOMEPARTS]

I am tired of being blasted with all the redundant impeachment noise. It does seem like this is all the media talks about. Trump and others are doing everything they can to keep this stirred up. Regardless, I intend to watch broadcasts from the open hearing testimonies.

Mass media has not figured out that Trump is gaining from dominating all press while the dem candidates get nothing.

[Primemuscle]

Mass media has not figured out that Trump is gaining from dominating all press while the dem candidates get nothing.

I think some of it has. I first heard this from the media....CNN to be exact.

[chaos]

I am tired of being blasted with all the redundant impeachment noise. It does seem like this is all the media talks about. Trump and others are doing everything they can to keep this stirred up. Regardless, I intend to watch broadcasts from the open hearing testimonies.

Are you drunk?

[IroNat]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/michelle-obama-bares-abs-sports-bra-gym-195451063.html


 


“It doesn’t always feel good in the moment,” she said of her workout. “But after the fact, I’m always glad I hit the gym.”

Her followers were impressed, judging by the flood of bulging bicep emojis in the comments section.

“Come through queen,” read one comment.

“You put me to shame,” added an admirer, while one commenter added “Come on mama!”

“So proud of you Michelle,” another fan wrote. “I’m going to plank because of this post.”

Others hailed her as an “inspirational goddess” — though many also joked that unlike the former FLOTUS, they spent their ‘Self-Care Sunday” sleeping in.

[Dos Equis]

Media's ‘clumsy handling’ of botched report attributing Obama-era stats to Trump blasted by critics
Brian FloodBy Brian Flood, Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

Fox News contributor and former Reagan White House political director Ed Rollins and Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin explain how President Trump is innocent and say 'deep state' actors are the ones who should testify in front of Congress.

Several media organizations were forced to make retractions Tuesday after falsely attributing an Obama-era migrant child-detention statistic to President Trump, but critics say the gaffe was handled incorrectly by many other mainstream outlets.

Manfred Nowak, an expert from the U.N. Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty, claimed Monday that 100,000 migrant children were detained by the Trump administration and indicated that it was the "world's highest rate" of detained children.

The following day, however, Nowak acknowledged that the cited number was from 2015 under President Barack Obama. The correction prompted several media outlets – including the Associated Press, Reuters, National Public Radio and Agence France-Presse (AFP) -- to completely withdraw their stories containing the original, incorrect information.

"Real journalism is reporting the truth, not covering it up. When the article originally portrayed Trump negatively, it was big news. When the truth came out that Obama was to blame, not Trump, the headline and text should have been corrected, not taken down,” Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson told Fox News. “The takedown appears political."

When the truth came out that Obama was to blame, not Trump, the headline and text should have been corrected, not taken down."

— William A. Jacobson
"A Nov. 18 story headlined 'U.S. has world’s highest rate of children in detention -U.N. study' is withdrawn. The United Nations issued a statement on Nov. 19 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015. No replacement story will be issued," Reuters stated.

MEDIA OUTLETS ATTRIBUTE OBAMA-ERA CHILD-DETENTION STATS TO TRUMP, ISSUE RETRACTIONS

National Public Radio wrote, "We have temporarily withdrawn this story because the study's author has acknowledged a significant error in the data. We will post a revised article with more complete information as soon as possible."

AFP which has over 1.7 million Twitter followers, issued its own correction and AP offered a more detailed explanation: "The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about a claim about the number of children being held in migration-related detention in the United States. The story quoted an independent expert working with the U.N. human rights office saying that over 100,000 children are currently being held. But that figure refers to the total number of U.S. child detentions for the year 2015, according to the U.N. refugee agency."

In addition to stories being completely withdrawn, the blunder also resulted in tweets condemning Trump being deleted.

DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall feels that “correcting erroneous stories is one of the toughest challenges” in journalism because news organizations dislike calling attention to their own errors.

“Professionalism demands, however, that reporting mistakes be corrected promptly and with the same amount of profile as the incorrect version of the story. The news-consuming public also deserves an explanation for how the error occurred in the first place,” McCall told Fox News.

An alarming Obama-era migrant child-detention statistic was falsely attributed to President Trump.
McCall noted that the U.N. Global Study received a ton of attention when journalists felt it was damning for the Trump administration.

“It has been interesting to see the varying approaches to how these news outlets have dealt with their original errors,” McCall said. “Simply withdrawing the inaccurate report is not sufficient in serving the public interest.”

McCall explained that “corrected stories need full context for the data report,” including the year the statistics were gathered and the fact that it occurred long before Trump took office.

“The clumsy handling of this story, the original and the largely flimsy follow-ups, seem to fit with the broader media narrative that the Obama years were blissful and the Trump years are riddled with chaos."

— Jeffrey McCall
“The clumsy handling of this story, the original and the largely flimsy follow-ups, seem to fit with the broader media narrative that the Obama years were blissful and the Trump years are riddled with chaos, when in actuality the problems with child detainees have been going on for some time,” McCall said.

Media Research Center Director Tim Graham called the ordeal an “embarrassing attack-and-retweet tactic” that is “doubly illustrative” of media bias.

“These outlets rushed to promote a study showing President Trump's immigration policies were horrifying on a global scale, and then when it turned out to be about 2015 and Obama's immigration policies, they sent their reports into a black hole instead of acknowledging the error the United Nations admitted,” Graham told Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/media-clumsy-handling-botched-report-obama-child-detention-stats-trump

[SOMEPARTS]

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-host-fake-poll-black-american-support-donald-trump-rasmussen-biased-ana-navarro-1474128


Emerson Poll 34.5%
Rasmussen Poll 34%


 

[Dos Equis]

Networks Spend 75 Hours on Trump’s Impeachment, Barely Bothered During Clinton Years
By Bill D'Agostino | November 25, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2019/11/25/networks-spend-75-hours-trumps-impeachment-barely-bothered-during

[Dos Equis]

JIM CRAMER, CNBC: Growth with not very much inflation, I wish people were making a little more money. Obviously we want people to make more money. There's a fellow by the name of Michael Cembalest, he is the Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan, he came up with a list of what the cable news -- MSNBC, CNN -- of what they cover. Number 16 (16!) is positive economic news. Everything else is negative. So you know what's going on here, people don't want to say good things!

And this is the best November I've ever seen in my life!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/06/cnbcs_jim_cramer_these_are_the_best_jobs_numbers_ive_seen_in_my_life.html?fbclid=IwAR0GsNc2mrhLd26_avFeBfRXi_vqOI4bezuZi01QJ0octJSW6NojLx03MJM

[The Scott]

JIM CRAMER, CNBC: Growth with not very much inflation, I wish people were making a little more money. Obviously we want people to make more money. There's a fellow by the name of Michael Cembalest, he is the Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan, he came up with a list of what the cable news -- MSNBC, CNN -- of what they cover. Number 16 (16!) is positive economic news. Everything else is negative. So you know what's going on here, people don't want to say good things!

And this is the best November I've ever seen in my life!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/06/cnbcs_jim_cramer_these_are_the_best_jobs_numbers_ive_seen_in_my_life.html?fbclid=IwAR0GsNc2mrhLd26_avFeBfRXi_vqOI4bezuZi01QJ0octJSW6NojLx03MJM

Only liberals can make take money.  It's so odd that they despise our President for making our Nation and her people prosperous once again.

[Primemuscle]

Why is it that many people who are the most vocal against social programs such as Medicade, ADC, and SNAP, etc are the same folks who have no problem taking full advantage of and even defrauding them?

[SOMEPARTS]

Why is it that many people who are the most vocal against social programs such as Medicade, ADC, and SNAP, etc are the same folks who have no problem taking full advantage of and even defrauding them?

Explain random comment.

[The Scott]

Why is it that many people who are the most vocal against social programs such as Medicade, ADC, and SNAP, etc are the same folks who have no problem taking full advantage of and even defrauding them?

The brush used by such as you is so broad that you more often than not manage to paint yourself into a corner.

Liberals fail to THINK.  Instead, they feeeeeeeeel.  And facts don't care about feelings.

Citizens, legal citizens that have worked for such benefits as you describe are entitled to them but should they defraud the system then they should be PUNISHED appropriately with time in jail.

Illegal shitizens should not be entitled to anything but a one way trip back to their turd-world land of origin regardless of whether they have pooped out a littler here or not.  And "dreamers" are naught but schemers.  Yes.  They are SHITIZENS.   I don't give an airborne intercourse about them. If you and your kind do, you take them in.  You clothe, feed, shelter and pay for them to be here . You sponsor them.  And should they commit a crime, you can do their time while they live off your life savings, retirement, social security, etc.  Your children, your family don't deserve to be taken care of by you.  Illegal shitizens DO!

How will that feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel?  

Oh wait!  Your dross was not directed at me.  Well my words are directed at you and your fellow fuckwad libs.  And mine are rooted in the reality of not only law but common sense.

[Primemuscle]

The brush used by such as you is so broad that you more often than not manage to paint yourself into a corner.

Liberals fail to THINK.  Instead, they feeeeeeeeel.  And facts don't care about feelings.

Citizens, legal citizens that have worked for such benefits as you describe are entitled to them but should they defraud the system then they should be PUNISHED appropriately with time in jail.

Illegal shitizens should not be entitled to anything but a one way trip back to their turd-world land of origin regardless of whether they have pooped out a littler here or not.  And "dreamers" are naught but schemers.  Yes.  They are SHITIZENS.   I don't give an airborne intercourse about them. If you and your kind do, you take them in.  You clothe, feed, shelter and pay for them to be here . You sponsor them.  And should they commit a crime, you can do their time while they live off your life savings, retirement, social security, etc.  Your children, your family don't deserve to be taken care of by you.  Illegal shitizens DO!

How will that feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel?  

Oh wait!  Your dross was not directed at me.  Well my words are directed at you and your fellow fuckwad libs.  And mine are rooted in the reality of not only law but common sense.

The fact is that I actually know people fit the description I exampled.