Another Victory For ‘Balance’

at

 raydarcyjulienm-226x300

From top: Graham Linehan and Helen Linehan; The couple on the Ray’ D’Arcy show on Radio One, October 19, 2015; Dr Julien Mercille

Talk of ‘balance’ is usually used to push the media further toward the conservative end of the spectrum.

Dr Julien Mercille writes:

Last week, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) upheld a complaint against RTÉ’s The Ray D’Arcy Show over an interview on abortion.

In October, Ray D’Arcy interviewed the creator of Father Ted, Graham Linehan, and his wife Helen. The couple talked about their decision to have an abortion because their foetus had a fatal abnormality.

Two people made formal complaints to the BAI that the show was not “balanced” because anti-abortion views were not given enough weight.

It’s not the first time such complaints were made.

This brings up again the issue of “balance” in journalism. Do we need it? Should it be something that is measured by an authority like that BAI, with powers to sanction broadcasters that do not balance their shows with two opposing viewpoints when an issue is discussed?

In Ireland, those matters are regulated by the BAI’s Code of Fairness, Impartiality and Objectivity  that draws on the Broadcasting Act 2009.

It is stipulated that broadcasters must present news in a way that is “impartial”, “independent” and “objective”. In other words, when a viewpoint is presented, it needs to be balanced with an opposing view.

However, it is not difficult to show that such rules are completely misplaced. The job of journalists is not to report in a “balanced” way—it’s to report the truth, as far as possible.

Think about it. Imagine RTÉ broadcasts a one-hour show on World War 2 and insisted on the inclusion of 30-minutes on the pro-Nazi view.

Or, during a hour-long show on nature, do we need 30 minutes about creationism so that we are told how the Bible understands the evolution of species to provide “balance” to the scientific consensus on evolution? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Opposite viewpoints should be presented when there is a legitimate debate to be had on a given topic, but that’s in cases where the truth is disputed or murky.

In any case, there’s no balance at all in the media. It presents mostly viewpoints that reflect the interests of economic and political elites. This is why it was strongly pro-austerity and never bothered questioning the housing bubble seriously.

And by the way, you don’t need to be a so-called “radical” to observe this. Journalist Pat Leahy said not so long ago in the Sunday Business Post exactly the same.

He wrote:

“Newspaper proprietors are usually rich men whose chief political agenda is to see governments make the world safe for rich men to become richer.”

But the BAI won’t hold the media to account because it doesn’t present enough progressive viewpoints. In fact, talk of “balance” is usually used to push the media further toward the conservative end of the spectrum.

In any case, two other issues are rather outrageous about the Broadcasting Act 2009. It states that broadcasters should not present anything (1) that “undermine[s] the authority of the State” or (2) anything that is “likely to promote, or incite to, crime”.

The first is beyond belief.

It amounts to saying that broadcasters cannot challenge what the State does (sure, you’ll hear all sorts of denials that “no, journalists can still challenge the government”, but just read the line above again, it’s plainly obvious).

So here the whole rhetoric of “an aggressive media holding the government into account” crumbles. It’s amazing that the State is arrogant enough to state explicitly that it doesn’t allow journalists to challenge it.

The second is also dangerous when one considers that what is deemed “legal” and “illegal” is in many respects decided by the powerful.

The implications are revealing. It means, for example, that the media cannot promote abortion, since it is a crime in Ireland. It cannot either promote illegal drugs, I suppose. Nor can it promote any form of civil disobedience such as challenging the water charges.

Sure, you’ll hear that in practice, we do hear all sorts of views about abortion and illegal drugs. But the principle that the media must uphold the law across the board is very revealing about the sheepish character that is expected of journalists.

In short, codes of conduct like the BAI’s have a chilling effect on media organisations and journalists who would like to take a more dissenting stance toward the establishment.

Julien Mercille is a lecturer at University College Dublin. Follow him on Twitter: @JulienMercille

Top Pic: Brian Lawless/PA Wire

Sponsored Link

102 thoughts on “Another Victory For ‘Balance’

      1. Kieran NYC

        McKenna – she has a LOT to answer for.

        The past few years, interviews with gay families got complaints about ‘balance’ – as if there needed to be an opposing point of view that they didn’t exist?

  1. newsjustin

    Balance is only important for live political or current affairs issues. So a couple talking about their experience of abortion would not, obviously, require an alternative view.

    A couple who had helped produce a video by a campaigning organisation in favour of changing the Irish Constitution did require balance.

    That balance doesn’t even need to be provided by another guest. It is often, very successfully, provided by a compotent current affairs host who can play devil’s advocate – regardless of their own personal views on the matter.

    It’s pretty straightforward really.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      So… anyone , that wore a badge or held a placard for either side of the debate needs an opposing side every time they are spoken to… that’s what you are saying. Ridiculous nonsense.

      Should we have a paedophile victim, or some one to speak on their behalf on to counter all that anyone who defends what the Catholic Church says on the matter. By your reckoning, no priest should ever be interviewed on TV on any matter without an opposing voice.

      Let’s take your view thew whole way…. I look forward to the hour long compulsory broadcast of the “atheist view” straight after Mass on Sunday.

      1. Harry Molloy

        That’s a bit of a straw man there Clampers with your paedophilia . It doesn’t have sides or a political agenda with the potential for social change.

        1. Clampers Outside!

          The discussion is about supposed balance in debate, nothing more. My example, has a side, the victims and those that covered it up. That’s not a strawman ffs :)

          Social change did happen. The discussions on paedophilia and the roll of the RCC saw the church decimated and a social change has occured.
          And, it does have sides, the church has form for cover up and lies. Ask the victims who get ignored by the Vatican. That’s two sides, and social change.

          1. rotide

            It should be noted that RTE drove a lot of that change.

            They made States of Fear, hosted the discussions and aired it all in public. Which sort of goes against the nonsense that Julien protrays.

          2. Owen C

            Isn’t the issue here essentially context? ie in the context of modern Ireland, abortion is relatively divisive and with large numbers of people on each side of the debate (it doesn’t have to be 50/50, but its not 90/10), so balance (ie an opposing view, not necessarily an opposing guest) is required by regulated broadcasters? The issues of Nazi’s and paedophilia are not rational comparisons, as 99%+ of the population is clearly against these issues, so the context does not require a balance. Ultimately, the balance of these debates is needed to make sure large minorities (as opposed to almost non existant ones supporting paedophilia or Nazis) do not have alternative agenda pushed upon them via the media.

      2. newsjustin

        What I am saying, and pretty clearly I think, is that any formal interview by an unbiased where a person or persons are actively campaigning for something as important as a change to the constitution merits an airing of opposing points of view. This has the additional benefit of allowing the proponents to tackle the counter arguments. It’s not about once wearing a badge or attending some rally.

        Your thoughts on the catholic church and mass are just silly tangents, but you know that. If a priest or bishop (anyone – just anyone) is on any programme proposing law reform or constitutional change – then, as per my point above, balance is required – either by the host or another guest.

        1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

          This is complete rubbish.

          If the interviewer is knowledgeable and knows their job they should be able to connote the necessary perception of balance which I think is what you’re really getting at. You’d be afraid of the likes of Ray D’Arcy being a bit too balanced for your peasant mindset right?

        2. Clampers Outside!

          Wasn’t there a host, Ray D’Arcy, on with Glinner and his wife….

          So by your own reckoning, this interview should not have received the ruling it got.

          And no, my point about Mass and having ‘atheist view’ come on straight after it would be a continuation of, an application of, of this stupid ruling.

          You can’t have a rule, and then say, but it only applies to the bits I want it to apply to.

          1. newsjustin

            There was a host. That’s the point. He was found lacking. He didn’t strive, and certainly didn’t achieve, any balance. If he had, this ruling wouldn’t have happened.

            And the BAI is tasked with enforcing standards for radio and television in Ireland. Not for policing what is said at private meetings – like masses. Don’t be so silly Clampers.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            Mass is not classed as a private meeting by the Catholic church, it’s classed as an open meeting for everyone by the church… and it’s broadcast on TV, and it’s content is the spreading of it’s propaganda.

            If that doesn’t warrant balance…….

          3. Clampers Outside!

            As for your Ray D’Arcy comment…. that’s not why the rule was upheld. It was upheld because the couple made a video.
            And by that reckoning we are back to my original point. All and anyone who campaigned for one side, must now have someone from the other side whenever on a programme, even if presenting their ‘human interest’ story, which IS what it was.
            It’s a stupid ruling.
            __________________________
            A note on that, I would argue that there was an element of balance, in the fact they read out the letters sent in BY the anti-women groups shows that there was a voice of the opposing side heard, it’s just they don’t like that side of their voice being called out for their foul and despicable attacks on these two people.

        3. pluto

          Not all arguments are created equal.

          A presentation of the facts as to why we know the world is a sphere would probably be interesting to most people (how curvature is calculated etc.).

          Do we have to subsequently listen to those who still believe the world is flat?

          Facts have no meaning anymore.

          1. Kieran NYC

            Clampers – seriously – just take a break from the woman bashing because of your past problems.

      3. DubLoony

        No very debate can be couched in black and white for & against terms.

        The rate of abortion in Ireland is on par with other European countries. the big difference is we are not allowed talk about its as an experience in our lives.

        1. Clampers Outside!

          I agree no debate is B&W. I’m working with what is being presented, which is a B&W version of things, and attempting (badly it seems) to point out the ridiculousness of it. The BAI ruling is a nonsense.

    2. well

      Can we get some balance in the media then that outlines Youth Defence and prolife campaigns origins?

      How about the fact Cora Sherlocks Brother Leo Sherlock owns theLiberal.ie and regular posts prolife , anti-marriage equality stories . Steals from other publications and runs fake competions?

      Why aren’t the BAI “balancing” Spirit Radio? A station connected to Lolek and the iona institute , all share the same directors and editors of Alive magazine.

      1. newsjustin

        BAI doesn’t regulate websites.

        What has Spirit Radio done that is against BAI codes of practice? If they’ve done something, you should complain them to the BAI.

      2. Daisy Chainsaw

        And one of the complainants, Brendan O’Regan is a writer for the Irish Catholic. No conflict of interest there!

      3. Kieran NYC

        Broadsheet happy to link to theliberal.ie in the NewsWhip column.

        Clicks, I guess.

  2. Dough Berman

    Defining ‘authority’ as ‘the power or right to make and enforce decisions’ or similar, the provision against undermining the State’s authority begins to look far more innocuous. On that reading, it’s fine to question or dispute the specific decisions, what’s prohibited is the suggestion that the State itself is illegitimate or what have you. Sedition, basically.

    Apart from that I agree completely. This spurious notion of ‘balance’ smacks of US-media-style false equivalence. We don’t need that here.

  3. Jess

    They should extend this balance to all issues

    ‘Thank you John from Acquired Brain Injury Ireland for that contribution on the importance of effective cycle helmets. Now for balance we’ll hear from Mary, who has an exceptionally hard head’

    1. Owen O'F

      You were going for ridiculous there, but your example is actually a good one. Plenty of arguments against compulsory bike helmet wearing out there.

    2. Owen C

      Silly argument. There seems to be a distinct lack of understanding about why balance is sometimes needed in divisive debates ie abortion, immigration, austerity etc, but not in reasonably well settled topics, ie the evils of paedophilia/nazi’s, the logical safety issues over helmets etc. If there was a “No Cycling Helmets” political party, or it was a major issue in the recent election, balance in the issue would be warranted, but, of course, there wasn’t.

      1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

        “There seems to be a distinct lack of understanding about why balance is sometimes needed in divisive debates ie abortion, immigration, austerity etc,”

        Never seen it happened for anything but SSM and abortion.

        “not in reasonably well settled topics, ie the evils of paedophilia/nazi’s, the logical safety issues over helmets etc”

        Who decides that line though?

        A couple coming on to talk about their experiences needs no balance. It’s anecdotal, that’s the whole point of it.

  4. Tony

    ?The job of journalists is not to report in a “balanced” way—it’s to report the truth, as far as possible”

    But whose truth? Thats the whole point of editorial. And the media have their own versions of the truth, just like Julien. In Dublin especially. Full of screaming liberals or (REDACTED’s) slaves. Now thats the truth Julien :-)

  5. Harry Molloy

    Also amusing that he questions the need for balance at the start of the column where “the truth” is one which he agrees with, i.e. pro choice, but then laments the lack of balance towards the end where “the truth” being pro austerity is one which he does not agree with.

    The proven point being that different groups have different ideas they would consider true and that broadcasters have a responsibility to provide balance to avoid the disproportionate pushing of an agenda.

      1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

        someone desperate, needy, doesn’t get enough attention in real life, or is an unbelievable narcissist, will say any sort of crap to get clicks, likes or responses – good, bad or indifferent

        1. Harry Molloy

          OK. But I was just stating my opinion, you don’t have to agree with it. I don’t agree with any of yours that I’ve seen but I wouldn’t call you a troll.

        2. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

          I wasn’t referring to you Harry – I was referring to Mercille!

          1. Harry Molloy

            oh, sorry! am so used to be attacked on here for having the wrong opinion. my bad…

  6. phil

    Just flood the BAI with complaints about everything broadcast, lets start with mass on sunday, what would the opposite of mass be?

    1. DubLoony

      Devil worship? Or a humanist ceremony, perhaps other faiths would like their 45 minutes of broadcast time too

    2. St. John Smythe

      this is not the worst idea in the world actually. I’m sure they make some absolute statements at mass (‘Christ is the one light, the way’ or something like that…its been a few years…) so they should be requested to provide to balance to that. (Christ is not the only ‘light’.)

      Even if fundamentally it proves to hold no legal water, it would be an interesting action to several hundred complaints in. Show how the ruling has consequences in how it might be interpreted and implemented.

      1. Wait For It

        Do they give sermons in these broadcasts? What was said coming up to the marriage referendum, or what might be said in these if there is a referendum on the 8th? Be interesting to see BAI rulings on what might be said there, and how balance is maintained during the broadcast of a mass.

  7. M

    The convention of journalistic objectivity has always been a sham.

    It came to be the norm after World War I because the newspaper industry
    was consolidating in most major American cities, so instead of ten
    newspapers cities ended up having one or two – and in order to appeal
    to newly diverse ideological readership the newspapers had to come up with
    this ‘objectivity’ excuse… It became, in the words of one famous academic,
    ‘a strategical ritual’. The BAI is a joke.

    “Objectivity was a contemporaneous legitimation of journalistic practices, a
    set of ideal interests used to camouflage or even further the press’ material
    interests: increased revenue, advertising, and circulation as well as protection
    from legal sanctions. Such practice did not inhere tacitly within the
    machinery of journalism-it was conscious, deliberate, and explicit.

    https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2267102481/objectivity-s-prophet-adolph-s-ochs-and-the-new

    1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

      correct

      isn’t the BAI stuffed with the likes of Niall Stokes and other rent-a-suits?

        1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

          I really am rotide

          I couldn’t think of a more apposite perjorative

          as in he doesn’t own a suit more likely he has to rent one

          this is called double entendre sweetie, this is the advanced class

  8. J

    “THINK ABOUT IT. Imagine RTÉ broadcasts a one-hour show on World War 2 and insisted on the inclusion of 30-minutes on the pro-Nazi view.”

    If Broadsheet did emojis, Julien would be an *eye roll*.

    1. J

      “Opposite viewpoints should be presented when there is a legitimate debate to be had on a given topic, but that’s in cases where the truth is disputed or murky”

      Julien on Truth in Journalism = grist to the “Factchecker” mill on a Monday morning.

  9. M

    Don’t recognise any name.

    Member & Term-End Date.
    Dr Pauric Travers (Chair), 01/12/2017
    Mr Alan McDonnell, 01/12/2019
    Ms Clare Duignan, 01/12/2019
    Ms Grace Smith, 01/12/2019
    Prof Maeve McDonagh, 16/02/2020
    Dr Rosemary Day, 16/02/2020
    Mr Denis Wolinski, 16/02/2020
    Mr Séamus Martin, 01/12/2017
    Mr Seán Ó Mórdha, 16/02/2020

  10. fluffybiscuits

    The BAI appears to have (from my view) breached its own impartiality policy or whatever it is called. If a report is done on the evils of child abuse via someone telling their story they do not include (for obvious reasons) a molester seeking to uphold the rights of abusers. The position is absolutely ludicrous. Facts the main stay of current affairs which were reported. Kow towing to far right anti choicers is hugely non impartial…

    1. newsjustin

      This kind of argument constantly misses the point that an abuse victim, in this example, is not typically campaigning for any legislative/constitutional change. They are just telling their story. Which would also have been the case if the Linehans were on just telling their story. But they weren’t, they were actively campaigning for constitutional change.

      If, for example (to extend yours further), an abuse victim was on the radio calling for a law change to allow the mandatory physical castration of all child abusers, then you would expect the question of balance to arise. This might mean the interviewer pointing out the demerits of the idea or a human rights organisation to speak against it or even a convicted (but hopefully reformed) abuser to give their take on it perhaps.

      1. fluffybiscuits

        Human Rights apply to humans , not a foetus which is not a human but which has potential to be a human so that puts paid to that argument. Child abuse victims do advocate for change, look at the redress board which has made a mess of paying out to those who suffered the injustices at the hands of the state and church. The Linehans main point was their story, it is a fact that if the constitution was changed then they would not have had to endure what they went through but the consititution argument was secondary to the story as the piece focused primarily on their trauma. Were it to be the case that real life stories should be discussed under your logic then anything which indirectly relates to a point of law would need an opposing argument which is not really feasible at all as then you would be watering down good quality journalism with drivel from religious nuts and far right zealots.

        1. newsjustin

          Your view on the status of a foetus puts paid to the requirement for balance in the discussion of the topic of abortion??? That’s just silly.

          No one is saying that people shouldn’t share there life stories. That’s what radio and TV interviews are all about. The requirement for balance only arises when an interviewee wades chest deep into current political debate and law reform. Most competent interviewers can handle that by simple avoiding bias on their own part and playing devil’s advocate. Ray D’Arcy clearly wasn’t able to.

          1. newsjustin

            From the BAI decision:

            ” …..the Committee was of the view that the other perspectives provided (as set out above) were insufficient, particularly where there were no other contributions via interviewees and where the presenter did not challenge in any significant manner the views of the interviewees.”

        2. newsjustin

          Clampers you’re an absolute spoofer. You don’t seem to have even read the rulings. Here’s one mention of Ray (the interviewer):

          “However, in a context where the interviewees were actively engaging in a campaign to change the Irish Constitution, the Committee was of the view that the other perspectives provided (as set out above) were insufficient, particularly where there were no other contributions via interviewees and where the presenter did not challenge in any significant manner the views of the interviewees.”

      2. Clampers Outside!

        Abuse victims campaign to expose the truth, and that campaign is very very much political. Your extension to wanting castration in order to qualify for ‘balance’ is not necessary.

        Please try again.

  11. DubLoony

    On their how to make a complaint page, they have a link to previous complaints that takes you to their publications page. And it doe not appear to have the previous complaints clearly marked.

    http://bai.ie/en/viewers-listeners/complaints/

    It would be an interesting study to view the previous complaints, to see how impartial they were.

  12. some old queen

    It became apparent during the marriage referendum debates how this rule is actually a form of censorship. They wheeled out the same old NO creeps again and again. Sometimes history gives context and in this case it is quite clear that someone expressing a personal view of how the marriage ban was affected them and their families against academic bullsh|t argument was not balance, it was comparing apples and oranges.

    And so be this. The opposite of Graham and Helen Linehan is a couple in a similar situation who did not have a termination. And even if they did find such a couple, it would have been a legal minefield if anything offensive was said. But instead a pro life campaigner would have been allowed to spout theoretical principles which are of no relevance to a personal story.

    It is complete nonsense.

    1. newsjustin

      The requirements of the BAI standards could have been met if the interviewer had simply challenged the interviewees on the political aspects of their interview – not their private experience of abortion, just their party to the campaing.pdf to change Ireland’s constitution.

      That would have given balance. Alternatively they could have provided balance by hearing from someone who helped produce a campaigning video for the pro life campaign. That being the opposite of what the Linehans did.

      All in all, it’d just have been easier if Ray D’Arcy did his job.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        No.

        I say again. The BAI did not rule on Ray’s handling of the interview. they clearly state in the reporting of the ruling that it was because Glinner and his wide had made a video.

        Please stop bringing Ray’s management of the interview into question – unless you have access to the original ruling, not the reported one, that states otherwise, which I’m sure you don’t.
        The ruling does not say what you have about how Ray did his part. From the RTE report linked…. “The committee was of the view that as the interviewees were actively engaging in a campaign to change the Irish constitution, the other perspectives provided were insufficient, and it upheld the complaint further to the Broadcasting Act 2009 and the BAI code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in news and current affairs.”

        So, anyone, with a badge or public display of their ‘opinion’ must now always be countered by an opposing side.

        Stupid ruling.

        1. newsjustin

          The BAI did rule on Ray’s handling of the interview. Either you haven’t read the BAI’s decision or you’re making stuff up Clampers.

          “However, in a context where the interviewees were actively engaging in a campaign to change the Irish Constitution, the Committee was of the view that the other perspectives provided (as set out above) were insufficient, particularly where there were no other contributions via interviewees and where the presenter did not challenge in any significant manner the views of the interviewees.”

          1. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

            Why should he challenge the personal views of the people who made a personal decision you vile, obnoxious, despicable creep?

          2. scottser

            I think news is correct in this case. Ray Darcy just doesn’t have the skills or the smarts to deal with any complex issues. The amount of times I heard him get his arse dragged out of trouble by will, Mairead and jenny when he was on today fm was truly.laughable. He”s way out of his death.

          3. Clampers Outside!

            I’ll give you that. It appears that there is more emphasis given to the ‘campaigning’ element in the reports.
            Where as the ruling, does include Ray’s incompetence.

            Fair enough, Newsjustin… on the ‘Ray’ points.

          4. newsjustin

            Thanks Rehab.

            No one is suggesting he challenge a personal decision. The BAI determined that he did need to challenge the interviewees political campaigning though, which he didn’t.

            Perhaps if you read the BAI report and the discussion here, rather than wording your foamy-mouthed insults, you’d be aware of the distinction.

  13. some old queen

    I repeat: The opposite of Graham and Helen Linehan is a couple in a similar situation who did not have a termination, not a political campaigner.

    1. newsjustin

      Them telling their story wasn’t a contentious part of that interview. It did not require balance.

      Them producing a video campaigning to the constitution was contentious and required balance. So the balance could have been provided by someone with an opposing view, regardless of the back story.

      1. some old queen

        So if it had just been a couple telling their story, would that require an opposing view?

      2. Clampers Outside!

        Again, anyone who has ever held a placard or worn a badge is doing exactly what that video did and those persons should be governed by the same rules now…. and that’s just stupid. It is closing down any discussion of the topic.

  14. Brendan O'

    Julien is a typical self-described progressive with a Twitter account. He’d like the Irish media world to be like MSNBC, Julien O’Donnell and friends.

    Bodger Maddow, Chompsky Matthews.

    1. Kieran NYC

      Actually MSNBC is quite fantastic, and a lot more intellectually liberal (with balance) than the nonsense often spouted here

  15. J

    Can BS resident factchecker confirm whether Jules speaks only of the truth when he appears on Iranian TV?

    1. declan

      : ) made my day,

      I love how been progressive can take a back seat when instinctive anti-americanism kicks in.

  16. Peter Dempsey

    Didn’t Glinner and his wife live in London anyway – which means they could avail of a termination without hassle.

    If so, why complain?

  17. Daisy Chainsaw

    Every time a fake “institute” with an agenda appears in the media, complain to the BAI using Cora Sherlock’s own words – “It’s not acceptable for Ireland’s taxpayer-funded broadcasting station to continue to provide a platform for people to promote their own personal agendas.”

    1. RunDemCrew

      Every time a fake “institute” with an agenda appears in the media…- like Zappone’s Centre for Progressive Change for a start.

      1. Daisy Chainsaw

        The word “Institute” doesn’t appear in Zappone’s Centre for Progressive Change.

        Try again.

  18. Kieran NYC

    Would be really interesting to get a Dan Boyle column on this actually, since it’s the ‘McKenna’ ruling that caused all these shenanigans.

    1. J

      Statutory requirements? Precedence ? *sshhhhusssshhhh The Geographer might end up lost in a fog of reason.

  19. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    It’s Wednesday. Some people might not appreciate me saying something like that, but it is…
    It’s Wednesday.
    -I checked.

    This comment might get put into moderation.

    I’m just gonna watch from the sidelines and decide my strategy.

    1. John

      What’s the opposite of you?

      The normal, not insane folk will be along soon, to provide some balance.

  20. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    No other site ever made me think’ You should go to bed’ like Broadsheet does.
    -Well, not as often…and never as effectively..
    I can haz,,,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie