Media Criticism

Trust the Media? Yes—And No

The biggest problem with media coverage is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don't.

|

The establishment media usually do a solid job telling the big stories. They are scrupulous about getting the details right. If CNN reports that the EPA will force automakers to raise average fuel economy by 20 miles per gallon, you can take that to the bank. If the Boston Globe quotes the city's mayor, you can trust the quotation's accuracy. If you read an obituary in the local paper, you can bet the rent that the name is spelled right. You're never going to see a reputable news organization report the fake-news story that the pope just endorsed Donald Trump.

Investigative reporting deserves a more jaundiced eye. Sometimes it is stellar—e.g., Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Frank Green's pieces on Keith Allen Harward, which led to the innocent man's release after decades in prison. Or the Washington Post's "Top Secret America" series exploring the world of domestic surveillance. But sometimes it is so faulty it has to be retracted. There are many examples, from a 1992 NBC Dateline segment on GM trucks to Rolling Stone's 2014 story on a rape at UVA.

The biggest problem with media coverage, though, is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don't.

It's no secret that most news organizations tend to lean left. Hence, they instinctively view some institutions (such as corporations) as the bad guys, and other institutions (such as government regulatory agencies) as the good guys. So you see a lot of reporting like The New York Times' "Toxic Waters" series or the Associated Press' "Pharmwater" series—full of dark warnings about the perils of too little government regulation. Do you ever see an investigative series suggesting there might be too much regulation of something—or even acknowledging the theoretical possibility?

I once asked the AP's Washington bureau chief just that. The best she could come up with was an exposé on how the New York Police Department had been spying on Muslims. Huh? That series concerned civil liberties, not regulation.

Even in the realm of civil liberties, you sometimes see a marked difference in tone. Mainstream news organizations often refer to the "gun lobby," but almost never to the "abortion lobby," despite their many similarities. That's because the word "lobby" carries sinister overtones. Most of the media consider abortion rights good and gun rights bad.

This doesn't make reporters and editors malevolent. They're merely fallible—just like the rest of us.

This column originally appeared as part of a Commentary section symposium on media in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Killer Who Blamed Marijuana Pleads Guilty to Second-Degree Murder

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They are scrupulous about getting the details right. If CNN reports that the EPA will force automakers to raise average fuel economy by 20 miles per gallon, you can take that to the bank.

    Yes, but you can’t take it to the bank the reporter will full understand much less report what that actually means. They may get the details right but the often have so little knowledge of the subjects they are covering that they just become a conduit for press releases from the government or what ever interest group favors the same side the reporter does.

    If the Boston Globe quotes the city’s mayor, you can trust the quotation’s accuracy.

    But you can’t trust it was taken in the proper context and was meant to convey the meaning the story suggested.

    1. You cannot trust that the quote was not edited so as to give a completely different meaning from what the speaker intended as well.

      1. That is what I mean by context.

        1. “I deplore terrorist violence like the attack on the Boston Marathon.”

          Yeah, that needs a bit of editing. How about:

          “I…like the attack on the Boston Marathon.”

    2. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. Do you ever see an investigative series suggesting there might be too much regulation of something?or even acknowledging the theoretical possibility?

    If Trump actually does manage to rein in the regulatory environment under which we all toil, the reporting will be akin to that of the Sequester. Impending doom.

  3. “The establishment media usually do a solid job telling the big stories. They are scrupulous about getting the details right. ”

    I’ll stipulate that the details they include in these stories are correct. But why should we ‘trust’ them when they’re only presenting part of the picture?

    It isn’t just that the media is rather selective with the stories they pursue (how many stories have been run about those who are happy Trump won?), they’re also selective with what they put into the stories they write. Add in the rather biased view they present (riots are described as protests, at least if the target of the ‘protest’ is Trump), and the public (at least those who aren’t drinking the Kool Aid) is justified in their skepticism.

  4. The biggest problem with media coverage, though, is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don’t.

    Yeah, I think the same thing every morning as I watch my local news and it’s another endless run of Trump hysteria and feel-good altruistic nonsense. They don’t even bother with the attempt at presenting any ‘alternate’ views like they used to.

    1. I remember catching Stossel’s Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death by random chance not that long after becoming a libertarian. I could not believe what I was watching was actually coming from my TV.

  5. “”””If CNN reports that the EPA will force automakers to raise average fuel economy by 20 miles per gallon, you can take that to the bank.”””

    So the MSM is capable of repeating a government press release.

    CNN also repeated the government when it said that there were WMD in Iraq, when it said there was a “Free Syrian Army which was not a real army but a collection of gangs, and when it said that an internet movie was responsible for the attack on an American diplomat

  6. You’re never going to see a reputable news organization report the fake-news story that the pope just endorsed Donald Trump.

    You are, however, going to see ‘reputable’ news organizations endlessly frame a discussion about DNC leaks as “Russia hacking the election”. The idea that major news organizations don’t peddle ‘fake news’ is utterly incorrect. They constantly frame issues in dishonest or inaccurate ways to carve out a pre-determined narrative that they try to force into the plebs’ minds. The only difference now is that media trust is so low that people aren’t buying it.

    1. The only difference now is that media trust is so low that people aren’t buying it.

      I don’t think that’s completely true. Most people have staked out the media outlet that confirms their views. They don’t trust any other outlet that doesn’t confirm their views.

    2. They all adopt the same misleading talking points. The “Russians hacked the election” is a good one. So is “Trump’s Muslim ban”.

      An entertaining indoor outdoor sport is to take a particular talking point about one of Trump’s policies or something he said and then see how many major media outlets repeat the exact same terms in describing it. Trump’s inauguration speech was “dark and angry”. I don’t expect them to agree with Trump, but you would think they could at least be creative enough to think of their own words. All of those smug dumb asses writing about Trump’s speech and not a single one of them could think of a synonym for “dark” when describing it.

      It is just comical.

      1. Sometimes they get really lazy about directly copy-and-pasting from JournoList 2.0. They all probably had a real hard week and were exhausted from constantly checking Twitter, though, so it’s understandable.

      2. The speech was tenebrous and wrathful.

        1. Why, even dusky and irate.

          1. It was dismal as obsidian-fingered dusk drawing close around the throat of the day, and its gloomy disposition was matched only by the fiery intensity of its indignation.

            1. A speech cloaked in the hues of ebon; foreboding in its intense ire and dim augury of the future.

              1. Dammit, how many 55-gallon drums of ink do you think we can afford to buy these days!?

                \newspaper budget director

            2. Guess I need to go too the thesaurus again.

  7. “The establishment media usually do a solid job telling the big stories. They are scrupulous about getting the details right”

    Not when it comes to reporting on anything related to guns.

    Their hysterical reporting regarding mass shootings often gets the details wrong about what type of guns were used and throw around the incorrect label of “assault weapon” with abandon.

    1. …throw around the incorrect label of “assault weapon” with abandon

      They know their definition – an assault weapon is a weapon that’s been used in an assault.

      1. Their definition is a scary looking gun. Or any gun capable of firing bullets.
        I propose the media in it’s entirety be drafted, and run through basic training to learn about firearms. Then put on the no-fly list because all veterans are PTSD wackos. Then revoke their press credentials because they are on the no-fly list.
        (In all sincerity, deep appreciation to all who have served. My contempt for the media does not apply to you. I am mocking their reporting, not the actuality of your service.)

    2. Or Russia in the past year.

  8. “…This doesn’t make reporters and editors malevolent…”

    It can.

  9. Should you trust the media?

    I now trust no media except my morning local newspaper. I am fairly sure between the police-blotter, the high-school-sports team-scores, the prospects of the regional farmers for “largest squash”-wins at the state fair, and updates on civic-infrastructure developments like “repaired sidewalks”, there are only modest amounts of Fake News and partisan-propaganda.

  10. Here are some excerpts from the White House press corps’ open letter to Donald Trump, which was printed in The Columbia Journalism Review a couple of weeks ago:

    “Think of what follows as a backgrounder on what to expect from us over the next four years.

    . . . .

    “We are [not] required to turn our airwaves or column inches over to people who repeatedly distort or bend the truth. We will call them out when they do, and we reserve the right, in the most egregious cases, to ban them from our outlets.”

    . . . .

    “We will fan reporters out across the government, embed them in your agencies, source up those bureaucrats. The result will be that while you may seek to control what comes out of the West Wing, we’ll have the upper hand in covering how your policies are carried out.”

    . . . .

    “We [will] cooperate and help one another whenever possible . . . you’re going to face a unified front. We’ll work together on stories when it makes sense . . . We will, of course, still have disagreements, and even important debates, about ethics or taste or fair comment. But those debates will be ours to begin and end.”

    . . . .

    “We’re playing the long game. Best-case scenario, you’re going to be in this job for eight years. We’ve been around since the founding of the republic”

    “An Open Letter to Trump from the US press corps”

    http://www.cjr.org/covering_tr….._corps.php

    1. All this because (according to the open letter) the Trump administration was considering reducing the White House press corps.’ office space in the White House.

      After reading that open letter, why should anybody believe anything the White House press corps. reports without independent verification?

      And why should Trump ever bother to address them directly? They hate him, and they’re out to get him. Let them eat tweets!

    2. We [will] cooperate and help one another whenever possible . . . you’re going to face a unified front. We’ll work together on stories when it makes sense . . . We will, of course, still have disagreements, and even important debates, about ethics or taste or fair comment. But those debates will be ours to begin and end.

      How far must their heads be up their asses to write that and think no one is going to notice the stark contrast between that and how they behaved over the last 8 years? They wrote that letter presumably thinking it would help their position. How can they have thought that?

      1. Also when did the Columbia Journalism Review become the spokesman for Journalist?

        1. The letter was written by the White House press corps.

          Specifically, these guys:

          http://tinyurl.com/jnfzkcc

          Everything you read, hear, or see about the President originates with that list of people.

          They’re the ones who wrote the letter. They just chose the Columbia Journalism Review to publish it–presumably because it’s neutral. An outlet like The New York Times can’t print something like that as if it were endorsed by them–that might impact whatever amount of credibility they still enjoy.

          1. God, the WH Press Corps are absolutely the most entitled, self-important whiners in the entire MSM, and all their job involves is parroting what the WH Press Secretary tells them. Adding previously agreed-upon negative spin, when there’s a Republican in office, of course.

    3. And then they proceed to collectively shit their pants because Trump was mean to Jake Acosta.

    4. But Spicer was totally wrong in saying they are the opposition party.

  11. It would take a longer article than this to untangle all that is wrong with the media. The biggest problem is that they instinctively consider the progressive perspective the be the default right answer. A great example of this is the government shut downs over Obamacare and the debt limit. Logically, both the Congress and Obama were equally responsible for shutting down the government. Either side could have opened the government by giving the other what it wanted. The media of course reported it as “Republicans shut down the government”, because to the medai the default answer was giving Obama what he wanted and if the Republicans didn’t, they were shutting down the government. The fact that Obama was the one who vetoed the spending bill and could have opened the government by giving the Republicans what they wanted was never considered.

    1. A great example of this is the government shut downs…

      I hate, hate, HATE how these are portrayed as if it were end times.

      1. Me too. And there is an example of the “objective facts” that the author here is trying to claim the media gets right. A government shut down means certain objective things. It is not difficult to report what those things actually are. But the media never does that. No, they just let the public have the impression that everyone in the military stands down, social security checks don’t get cut and the federal prisons are left ungaurded because of those evil nihilist Republicans.

  12. There’s also frequency of reporting. If a child is shot by a gang banger, the story goes national, and is reported the day of the incident, during the perp walk, the arraignment, the trial, and the sentencing, maybe the kid’s funeral too – almost all front page news. If a kid drowns in the pool, it gets a brief mention on the local news and a small article on page B7.

  13. The biggest problem with media coverage, though, is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don’t.

    That’s not the biggest problem.

    The biggest problem is that “news” consumers demand that more than just the news be delivered to them. They demand to know not just the facts but also what to think about the facts. And they don’t want just any old thoughts, they want the right thoughts. And the media outlets are all too happy to oblige. All media outlets want to be the trusted name in news and, now, not be labeled fake news.

    1. I don’t think that is fair to consumers. There is more to reality than objective facts. Facts only mean something if you know the context of them. News reporting should have explanation and more than just facts. The problem is doing that is not as easy as just repeating press releases. And not many reporters are up to it.

      1. The problem is doing that is not as easy as just repeating press releases.

        Which is why most people don’t want to do it. It’s hard. Having someone else tell you what to think is much easier. Disagreement hardly seems possible anymore when the other guys are pure evil.

  14. ‘During early media coverage of the incident, Zimmerman’s call to the police dispatcher was misleadingly edited by NBC so that it appeared that Zimmerman had volunteered Martin’s race. ‘

    Now that was fake news, and it was not accidentally reported.

  15. Yeah, the two assertions that this article starts off with… and then the insistence on innocent fallibility when I’ve been absolutely bombarded with starkly obvious bad faith lies in recent times…

    No, just no.

  16. This doesn’t make reporters and editors malevolent. They’re merely fallible?just like the rest of us.

    It’s only that they’re consistently fallible in a certain political direction that makes for distrust.

    1. And, you know, the documented instances of malevolence.

    2. Bingo. The mistakes only go one way. They never make a mistake that benefits the right or harms the left. They forever make mistakes that support whatever their narrative is and harms anyone who objects.

      And that does make reporters and editors malevolent. The entire profession is beneath contempt.

    3. Let me play Devil’s Advocate here. Bias is not the same as malevolence. It’s an old saw that a fish doesn’t know it’s wet. I’d suggest that it is possible that the media is “innocently” biased. That is, they report from a biased position wihtout ever knowing they’re biased. We all have a spectrum of what we believe is within the realm of possibility. We don’t seriously consider the LaRouchite ranting about how the Queen of England is secretly behind the Iraq War because of her ongoing war with the Pope because the argument falls our perception of the realm of the plausible. The average major metro journalist is likely so ensconced in the progressive circle jerk that he or she looks at anything to the right of the NY Times as falling outside the realm of the plausible. In a way, it’s a deeper problem than malevolence because it suggests the problem is even more systemic than bad faith.

      1. Excellent point.

      2. I think that’s about right. You have your givens, like gravity exists and Republicans hate poor people, and those will come out when you are writing no matter the subject.

        For example, every mainstream article about Obamacare is so fraught with these progressive “everybody knows” givens that it all comes across as “Ds are doing their plucky if sometimes error-prone best to help the poor and sick while Rs just care about profits for drug companies and insurers.” Seems malicious, but really just stems from unchallenged preconceptions about What Is Good.

        (John Legend’s “Everybody Knows” is closer to the truth about health care: “Everybody knows that nobody really knows how to make it work, or how to ease the hurt.”)

      3. My only problem with this is it’s a “get out of jail free” card. Unless the bias is recognized and guarded against (even imperfectly) there is no meaningful difference between lazy bias and systemic bad faith.

        Sure, they’re not actively malevolent just doing malevolent things for unjust/immoral reasons because they can’t be bothered to figure out why anyone would think different from them.

  17. The establishment media usually do a solid job telling the big stories. They are scrupulous about getting the details right.

    Times are changing, good sir.

    Did you know that Russian hackers took over Vermont’s power grid back in December? You would if read Washington Post.

  18. The legacy media is usually pretty good at getting verifiable facts right (although not as good as Hinkle suggests). What they’re horrible at is the underlying analysis of putting those facts together in a meaningful way. The truth is that they’re rarely nearly as knowledgeable about the topics they’re covering as they’d like to think. As a result, you get things like Gell-Mann Amnesia where any time they cover a topic you’re knowledgeable about, you realize they completely botched the story. Or you find that they omitted key facts while elevating extranea to major elements of the story. In contrast, I find that blogs or crowd-sourced analysis tends to get analysis down much more often.

  19. The media has lost any shred of credibility, it will be a long time before it recovers. That includes Reason. We need trustworthy sources, not feelz articles on how icky Trumpler is. The biggest loser of the election is the media and it shows no signs of wanting to fix it.

    1. They’d rather double-down on insulting middle America, having temper tantrums, and congratulating themselves on how brave and noble they are for impotently shouting the same opinions that all of their friends and colleagues share.

      1. They are frothing up the far left into doing something stupid, veerrrrrrry stupid. /Elmer Fudd voice

  20. Time Magazine, a supposedly reputably mainstream media source, had a journalist who tweeted that the Martin Luther King bust in the Oval Office had been removed because he couldn’t see it at that precise second. And then a couple of minutes later, “Oh wait, I found it, it was behind a door and there was a cameraman blocking it.”

    That’s the problem. “News,” is now driven by the need to say something without taking the time to vet your story. Even the best news outlets will report rumors as if they’re news in the need to produce information as fast as possible.

    1. Their favorite trick is to say something false and that damages the other side and then when called on it say “woops my bad” and retract it knowing that the damage is already done. Any retraction is never going to have the same circulation as the original claim.

      1. Greenwald drove that point home when he skewered WaPo over their fake news. There’s a retraction, but it doesn’t get tweeted, it doesn’t get on the front page, it just gets swept under the rug as a temporary embarrassment. But it has little effect, since now millions of people still believe the fake news.

        Reason did the exact same thing with their “Trump killed my grandma” fake story. It was probably the most shameful thing I’ve read here and I don’t blame people for jumping ship over it.

        1. meanwhile the original fake news is on the internet for trolls to forever pull up as proof of the origianal lie which is the intent all along

    2. Saw a tweet that too often journalists treat stories like Kanye with Life of Pablo: release it then continue working on it.

  21. The establishment media usually do a solid job telling the big stories. They are scrupulous about getting the details right. If CNN reports that the EPA will force automakers to raise average fuel economy by 20 miles per gallon, you can take that to the bank. If the Boston Globe quotes the city’s mayor, you can trust the quotation’s accuracy. If you read an obituary in the local paper, you can bet the rent that the name is spelled right. You’re never going to see a reputable news organization report the fake-news story that the pope just endorsed Donald Trump.

    Yeah the traditional media always gets the details right. In it’s glee to mock GayJay it didn’t trip over itself three times in describing Aleppo. It’s not like almost every dog bite is from a pitbull. They never misreport how criminal sentencing works. And they’re always correct when describing how the house passed a bill so that people on social security who need help navigating the system aren’t judged mentally ill, losing their gun rights. For straight facts, trust the media.

    1. The fate of pit bulls is a great example of how loathsome and dishonest the media is. Pit bulls were for many years the national dog. By the 1980s they had fallen out of favor but were in no way thought to be a threat. Then the media came along and invented a story completely out of thin air that dreaded crack dealers were training killer pit bulls to fight and act as guard dogs for their operations.

      This did two things. It caused people to have a completely unreasonable fear of the dogs. Second, it because a self fulfilling prophecy as actual drug dealer and various lowlifes saw the stories and thought “damn that is cool” and went out and bought pit bulls and made them vicious.

      Thanks to the media being a bunch of lying sacks of ignorant shit, an entire dog breed was unfairly branded viscous and who knows how many innocent dogs were treated cruelly and turned vicious.

  22. http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..john-nolte

    Here you go Bart. When the Washington Post says something, it must be true. Yeah they maybe want to work on that a bit.

  23. The biggest problem with media coverage, though, is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don’t.

    Yep. Case in point – a self-described libertarian publication which regularly publishes pieces on police abusing their power completely blows-off a story about a 67-year old female school nurse who was arrested for caring for an injured student.

  24. The biggest problem with media coverage, though, is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don’t.

    Yes, like when Reason ignored the Rotherham scandal for weeks and then only gave it a single weekend “we really don’t know what this all means” article. Or like how Reason covered the flood of refugees into Europe extensively while it was going on but suddenly lost interest when those refugees were found to be committing many and awful crimes once they got to Europe, contrary to Reason’s absolute certainty that nothing like that would happen/.
    Yeah, Bart, like that.

  25. I think we’d all be better off if we just admit the media are all tabloids now. Yes, occasionally someone somewhere does good reportage, but most of the time it’s simply click-bait sensationalism where, maybe, the body of the article has a bit of substance, but the headline is always slanted or wrong. We had a good run where the MSM could claim to be ethical journalists, but we’ve now returned to a state more akin to the yellow journalism period of the turn of the last century. It’s all ‘hot-takes’ and rumor and bias thrown onto the internet without more than five minutes of thought or investigation. If journalists want to be treated like they’re some kind of anointed by God, they at least need to behave with some standards, and I don’t see any way that’s going to happen when the competition for clicks and retweets drives the news.

  26. “Can you trust the media?”

    No. Next question.

  27. RE: Trust the Media? Yes?And No
    The biggest problem with media coverage is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don’t.

    I don’t trust anyone.
    That philosophy has really helped me down through the years.

  28. “You’re never going to see a reputable news organization report the fake-news story that the pope just endorsed Donald Trump.”

    But you did see them report the fake news that julian assange endorsed trump and praised putin, so….

    1. And also that Russian hackers had taken over Vermont’s power grid.

      1. + Muslim ban

  29. I suggest that it’s hard to describe things accurately when you don’t have a workable understanding of them.

    My observation is that much of the media are comprehensively ignorant on many things.

    Where does that leave “scrupulous about getting the details right”?

  30. Dan Rather’s reporting on Bush’s miltitary experience
    CBS editing George Zimmerman’s 911 call
    Brian Williams helicopter be shot at by RPG

    no the main stream media never makes fake news

  31. When I read stories like this, I wonder why a member of “the media” would suggest that there is such a thing that is monolithic, as if the very word media isn’t plural. Perhaps it’s just my tendency to think of humans as individuals.

  32. I read this article, then I thought of the media reporting on big stories such as mass shootings, wars, WMDs, police shootings, oil spills, climate change, etc, and have come to the conclusion that while I like Mr. Hinkle, he is full of shit on this one.

    I have pretty intimate knowledge of various aspects of my field of employment and it often finds itself in the news. I always shake my head at how incredibly inaccurate and or stupid the media is on even the most basic of things.

    I’m sure most other people have felt the same way when the reports are in their field of work. To think they’re just idiots about the one sector you have intimate knowledge of, and accurate on everything else shows a scary amount of cognitive dissonance.

    1. I’m sure most other people have felt the same way when the reports are in their field of work.

      Exactly. I concluded that MSM like the NYT and CNN were bogus decades ago based on their reporting in my field.

  33. I see what you mean… Jesse `s postlng is neat… on monday I bought a top of the range Jaguar E-type after I been earnin $7477 this-last/4 weeks and-even more than, 10-k last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job Ive had . I started this seven months/ago and right away was making more than $73 per-hr . go right here…
    ………….. http://www.cash-review.com

  34. “This doesn’t make reporters and editors malevolent. They’re merely fallible?just like the rest of us.”

    “Fallible” would indicate that these reporters make “honest mistakes” when reporting. Their “mistakes” are not slip-ups — they are calculated. The media, let’s say the Washington Post, often report whatever “facts” or “news” they desire to make their biased point and IF called on it they “apologize” somewhere deep in the newspaper/website. The apology is never on the front page. I cannot count the number of stories I have read where the writer will be reporting and suddenly add in a negative or snarky comment about President Trump. Most of the time these asides have nothing to do with the story at all.

    When you mention that the newspapers do “investigative” stories on what they see as the positive aspects of regulation, but never on the negative side of regulation — that is a planned agenda by the newspaper and whatever groups the newspaper is either working with or supports.

    When the Washington Post often calls me to subscribe to the newspaper I tell them that I will not subscribe because I disagree with their editorial page. They say then don’t read the editorial page (of course every page of the Washington Post is the editorial page), just buy it for the coupons. I wonder, however, if even the coupons have a slant.

  35. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  36. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.cash-review.com

  37. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  38. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.