Washington Times’ Solomon: ‘I’m Not An Ideologue,’ ‘I Checked Any Ideology’ At The Door
Washington Times’ Solomon: ‘I’m Not An Ideologue,’ ‘I Checked Any Ideology’ At The Door
Since the Washington Times took on controversial journalist John Solomon as executive editor in January, Solomon has undertaken great PR efforts to claim that the conservative paper is becoming more “balanced.”
“It’s going to be about being fair and balanced and accurate and precise,” he proclaimed in January. “All of our journalism will seek to be fair, balanced, accurate and precise,” he reiterated in his “Seven Guiding Principles” in February.
On C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Thursday, Solomon was asked if his recent move would alter the conservative tilt of the Times. Solomon replied that he “checked” ideology at the door years ago and now restricts politics to the Times’s op-ed pages and not news:
You know, I’m not an ideologue. I’ve been a journalist my entire life. I started at age 17, and I checked any ideology and any political thoughts I had at the door so that I could be a journalist that people could listen to each day and trust my work and not suspect any of my motives. That said Washington Times has had a great reputation as a conservative newspaper on its editorial and opinion pages. That’s where it belongs.
Watch it:
On national TV, Solomon assures the public that the Times will remain “fair.” But he tells a different story to other audiences. U.S. News reported last week on his comments to the conservative Heritage Foundation:
Readers of and workers at the conservative Washington Times can breathe easier now. New Editor John Solomon, who toiled at the Washington Post for a year and before that at the AP, says he didn’t drink the Post’s Kool-Aid. “I didn’t get the bug.”
On C-SPAN, Solomon said ideological talk will be restricted to the opinion pages. If that were the case, why did he allow a baseless article claiming the military “fears” Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to be published in the news pages?
The promises of “balance” don’t end there. In February, the Times announced it would remove some of the “hard-line conservative rhetoric” that was common in the paper. “The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage),” the new style guide said. But on Wednesday, the Times’ editors ran a story mentioning “homosexual marriage“:
McCain associates told The Washington Times that his operatives are not going to work behind the scenes to eliminate the party’s calls for constitutional bans on abortion and homosexual marriage before the GOP convention in September.
The Times has some more work to do before its reporting becomes “fair, balanced, accurate, and precise.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
fairness doctrine……
April 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am“It’s going to be about being fair and balanced and accurate and precise,” he proclaimed in January. “All of our journalism will seek to be fair, balanced, accurate and precise,” he reiterated in his “Seven Guiding Principles” in February.
One more time for the idiots out there. Journalism is not about being “fair and balanced”, Journalism is about reporting the objective truth. You don’t simply report what each side of a dispute is saying. Most of the time, one side is lying. You report what the objective truth is, and if the truth is that the Republicans are lying, then you say so.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:16 amWith the Rev. Moon paying the bill this guy will write how he is told to write and what to write about.Fairness my A$$ this paper belongs to the KING of AMERICA and the neocons are behin rev. Moon all of the way.Fair and Balanced like Fox news, no spin like Fox news not gonna happen.This paper lives the neocon dogma if it`s black they will it white.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:17 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I’ll bet ThinkProgress has never used the term “homosexual marriage.” (or has it?) Glass houses, you know…….
Can you find an an instance when TP did use that term (and not when quoting some conservative homophobe)? If not, then STFU and go away.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:20 amfair and balanced
with us or against us
surge
spreading democracy
honor the troops
creationism
freedom fries
etc…..
you are flagged righty…..
April 5th, 2008 at 10:24 amsad but true…..we will make your righty papers show both sides of the story…….then you will at least have a reason to be whining…….
April 5th, 2008 at 10:27 amNo, but it disqualifies you from a rational discussion.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:32 amGood Morning Wayne and Fred…..Nice to read you here……Blessings
April 5th, 2008 at 10:36 amGood morning, Witch1. Just trying to educate folks, regardless of how pointless it is with some people.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:39 amGood morning Witch1, I’m with Wayne…..I think we could be doing more constructive things…..after coffee maybe.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:42 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am
6. Interesting distinction you use there Wayne, when in the instance quoted above, the WSJ was quoting someone else. Glass houses.
And your point is? I believe you do not understand the correct usage of the throw-away phrase “glass houses.”
My point is that you cannot find an instance where TP used the term “homosexual marriage” instead of “gay marriage”, except for when they were quoting what some homophobe said. So your snarky, abuse-flagged comment was nothing more than a lame attempt to toss around insults.
Once again, I challenge you to find an instance where TP used that term, and then you can talk about “glass houses”.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:43 amI would think most non-homophobic people (and probably TP) would use the term “same sex marriage.”
Wayne & Fred, there’s no educating some people. *sigh*
April 5th, 2008 at 10:52 amI guess you’re right, Zooey. It’s like the old saying,
April 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am“You can lead an idiot to facts, but you can’t make him think.”
Solomon:
You know, I’m not an ideologue. I’ve been a journalist my entire life.
This strikes me as a bit of a straw man. The interviewer did not ask Solomon if he’s an “ideologue”. She asked him about the paper and its future direction. He defended himself by claiming he’s not something that he wasn’t accused of being.
Solomon is a journalist — most people recognize that — but he is a biased journalist. His reporting bears this out. His sloppy rightward slant on the Jack Abramoff story when he was with AP is enough evidence to establish that,
April 5th, 2008 at 10:55 amBack at ya Wayne, Fred and Lady Z….Good job but remembr, “We can’t fix stupid.”…LOL……Blessings all..
April 5th, 2008 at 10:56 amAnd Wayne, excellent observation on the need for accuracy above “balance” when reporting the news. Thanks for your always-clear head.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:57 amIt’s amusing when they come in slinging insults and then drop back immediatly into victim status….I guess they are so used to being kicked even by people they agree with that they automatically drop to the ground, curl up and cry….like an obiedient but poorly trained dog.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:58 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I’ll bet ThinkProgress has never used the term “homosexual marriage.” (or has it?) Glass houses, you know…….
______________
Are you trying to find the courage to come out?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:01 amWitch1 Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“We can’t fix stupid.”…LOL……Blessings all..
______________
We can’t fix stu… HEY! Waitaminnit… who said I NEEDED fixing?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:02 amI wasen’t writing about you TROS…..You know that…Blessings
April 5th, 2008 at 11:05 amI think it’s funny that because of the Right’s disingenuous embrace of the term “Fair & Balanced™”, it has become a cultural joke, and is widely understood now to mean “biased and slanted”.
We can thank Al Franken for some of that, but Faux News did most of the heavy lifting.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:05 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am
6. Interesting distinction you use there Wayne, when in the instance quoted above, the WSJ was quoting someone else. Glass houses.
______________
Actually, I don’t see where the use of the phrase was a quote.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:06 amIf Solomon wasn’t an ideologue, The Times would never have hired him. Like FoxNoise, it exists only as a propaganda tool.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am“It’s going to be about being fair and balanced and accurate and precise,” he proclaimed in January. “All of our journalism will seek to be fair, balanced, accurate and precise,” he reiterated in his “Seven Guiding Principles” in February.
He’s only telling the truth, guys. To be fair, rational points of view should be balanced by irrational points of view. How can you discern what is lucid, unless you’re given a whacky counterview?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:07 amFred
April 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I love it when they start with “I’m trying to “dissent,” but all you lefties do is name call.”
Jeebus…
April 5th, 2008 at 11:09 amThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Actually, I don’t see where the use of the phrase was a quote.
Oops.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:10 amI’m waiting for the Times to interview the crazy old cat-lady from the Simpsons, to get her views on global warming.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:11 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
The WSJ used the term “homosexual marriage” when quoting someone who used the term. ThinkProgress used the term “homosexual marriage” above when quoting someone who used the term. Glass houses.
Bzzzzt. No quotation marks; they were “reporting” on McCain’s plans but they never quoted him and there is no indication what term McCain actually used. Nice try.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:12 amZooey, weren’t you going somewhere? Check back at The Zoo!
April 5th, 2008 at 11:13 amWhy should we listen to The_Wrong_Stuff when it can’t even tell the difference between the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal?
MInd you, in terms of ideology, they’re identical, but still…
And even then, I still don’t see where the WaTimes is quoting anyone who used the term “homosexual marriage”. They’re discussing it as a question of standard useage.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:14 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
My bad…. please substitute WT for WSJ. Same point, different paper.
I think you mean “Same slant, different paper”.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:16 amI know, and they don’t even understand why we ridicule them…….it is trying after a while. You know we raised 3 kids and there were times when we just ran them outside with their childish behavior….but it wasn’t unexpected from them…..just tiring.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:19 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
McCain associates told The Washington Times that his operatives are not going to work behind the scenes to eliminate the party’s calls for constitutional bans on abortion and homosexual marriage before the GOP convention in September.
___________________________
The WSJ used the term “homosexual marriage” when quoting someone who used the term. ThinkProgress used the term “homosexual marriage” above when quoting someone who used the term. Glass houses.
Is this a lame attempt to prove your point? Do you not understand the concept of “block quotes”? The passage you quoted was not TP’s words, they were the WT’s words. Again, you should just either find the evidence to support what you’re saying or STFU and go away.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:20 amThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
What is wrong with the term “homosexual marriage?” Is it the term “homosexual,” the term “marriage” or the use of the two words together? Please explain.
Why don’t you ask John Solomon at the WSJ… I mean, the WaTimes?
April 5th, 2008 at 11:21 amwhat’s wrong with the term facist in place of conservative? What? you don’t like being called a facist?…..oh.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:22 amWayne, wouldn’t that be nice? But it’s not the way many on the Right, including in the administration, conduct their debates. If they’ve got weak evidence, they try to explain why it’s actually stronger than it is. If they’ve got no evidence, they invent some straw man point that muddles the issue.
It must be so freeing to throw off the shackles of the Reality-Based Community.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:25 amWhat is wrong with the term “homosexual marriage?”
Nothing. It’s as apt a descriptor as “anti-abortion” is, for those who oppose the procedure. Why do you suppose the anti-abortionists prefer to be called “pro-life”
April 5th, 2008 at 11:27 amGetting my laugh’s for a good day….Blessings all
April 5th, 2008 at 11:27 amralph the wonder llama Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
It must be so freeing to throw off the shackles of the Reality-Based Community.
I wouldn’t know how they do it, as I am too grounded in reality. Maybe it’s similar to when my boss asked us once how morale in the company was doing, and I said, “Mine’s improved since I stopped caring.”
April 5th, 2008 at 11:29 amWayne,#47…Great thought there, I will have to remember it, can I use it in the future.? Priceless….Blessings
April 5th, 2008 at 11:35 amAbsolutely, Witch1. He didn’t care for my answer, BTW, but he also didn’t get the point.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am48.
Moon has bottomless pockets, funded by his cult. The Moonie Times can operate at a loss forever.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:38 amYep! No suprise there Wayne…I have worked for lot’s of slow leaker’s in my past also…Blessings
April 5th, 2008 at 11:40 amralph the wonder llama Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
And Wayne, excellent observation on the need for accuracy above “balance” when reporting the news. Thanks for your always-clear head.
Ralph, you haven’t seen him around the house. ;)
April 5th, 2008 at 11:40 amI see that this thread was visited by an angry little troll.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:44 amGood Morning Jane…..Me think’s you both are very lucky indeed..Have a wonderious day….Blessings
April 5th, 2008 at 11:44 amOy. (ralph slaps self on forehead)
And a hearty good morning to you, Jane.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:47 amSolomon …I’m not an ideologue. I’ve been a journalist my entire life. I started at age 17, and I checked any ideology and any political thoughts I had at the door…
Washington Times’ hat-check girl: Um, that’s not what’s hanging on the hook. What you gave me was black, and smelled so badly, we had to have it dry-cleaned. And the label said “credibility,” not “ideology.”
April 5th, 2008 at 11:52 amGood morning, Witch1 and ralph!
April 5th, 2008 at 11:54 amApparently…
The_Wrong_Stuff is unclear as to what constitutes a “quote”… it’s the use of those little “…” thingies around the “actual quote”.
Why are trolls so endlessly grammatically challenged?
April 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pmTRoS, I think it has to do with the fierce battle to rise to the top of the troll heap. Ignorance of grammatical convention (as well as logic, research and fact-based debate) is a huge advantage when sparring with other trolls. Since they very seldom have facts or reason on their side, the troll-candidates who observe the rules of intelligent society are inevitably left battered and beaten by their less-reality-enslaved counterparts.
It’s a simple evolutionary process. I mean, it’s a simple God-ordained creation process.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pmSolomon’s performance on C-span was the most disgusting display of deception I have ever seen.
Well, thanks TP for bringing up this subject. Sadly, this post did not cover the more disgusting and important of the many deceptions Solomon pushed while he was on this show.
Solomon said bluntly the paper was not owned by Moon. Anyone who knows anything about the Moon organization knows that is a HUGE lie. Sure, you can go to the paper fronts Moon uses to do his deeds and claim they own it, but anyone who knows anything about Moon knows he is the boss, what Moon says goes. If he wanted to pull the plug on the WT tomorrow – the plug would be pulled. He’s the “messiah” to them in case you did not know. Any study of Moon’s organization knows that every front created, every dollar spent, every word uttered, every operative directed is meant to bring Moon face and help him manipulate the planet toward his word wide goals.
There are many sources which document that Moon is the head of this organization with its interchangeable parts and they do not spend billions of dollars without him ordering it. Anyone who says different is willfully ignorant or simply a liar. Moon brags about how much money he has spent on the paper, openly bragged he spent a billion on it by 1991.
When Moon is conning people all around the world out of their souls, he is introduced as the “owner of the prestigious Washington Times.” Moon himself also brags about using the paper and his “other activities” to “influence America.” He also said he created the paper so his followers could “influence America.” His followers who know exactly how Moon plays this game, call all these fronts, including the WT, “Father’s projects.” Moon and his followers see themselves as creating an environment for their movement to flourish and the WT is an integral part of that effort. Moon calls his goal here, “the natural subjugation of the American government and population.’ (US News and World Report – 1989)
Solomon tried to make people think the paper is just part of some media group and that together they run paper, leaving the impression the paper is not a multi billion dollar loser which has been funded out of Moon’s overseas cash pot which includes hundreds of millions of dollars made swindling widows in Japan. Why is this not an issue? This post is about Solomon claiming to be balanced which we all know is as fraudulent as FOX’s claim of same.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/9/13513/46197/94/234851
April 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pm“>Moon’s money – the billions he spent manipulating our political system.
Among his other deceptions, Solomon very cagily worded his statement about “independence” from Moon’s interference on the paper. Solomon said that “every” editor he talked to said the moonies didn’t interfere with the paper. Again, willful ignorance is the easiest way to explain the deception. Whether he sees it or not, Solomon deceived the nation for Moon.
Several editors have quit the paper over moonie interference and it doesn’t take two minutes with google to find that out. Solomon simply did not talk to the ones who quit the paper, willful ignorance or just lying?
He should read this post from a former WT editor. This is quite a read TP should link to it. It’s about one of those editors who quit the WT who took the time to explain to Tony Snow how the paper is a moonie front and that they have interfered with the paper’s editorials.
Read this:
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2006/04/26/my-encounter-with-tony-snow/
But even though Solomon pushed this deception about the paper’s independence from Moon, which is a lie, it is not the point either.
Moon created the paper to push America’s political system right and bring him face around the world. He wants a right wing America because it fits his word view and is fertile ground for the theocrats. His other fronts have funded and promoted people like Falwell and Lahaye over the years for this same purpose. Moon knows exactly what he is doing. He wants to make our nation into his image – a right wing theocratic leaning, authoritarian, homophobic horror. Moon’s image.
Moon does not have to come into the WT office to do this. He simply hires people like Pruden and Solomon, winds them up and lets them go. Moon knows what kind of a product he will get from them. Bo Hi Pak said that when de Borchgrave was running the paper that he and Moon thought De Brochgrave instinctively knew what they wanted and for that reason, “they could trust him” to run the paper.
Editorial independence at the WT has not been true but is not the point. The paper itself, funded with billions in overseas cash, is Moon’s tool, the entity itself brings Moon his goal.
Here is a quote from James Whelan, the staunchly conservative and highly recruited first editor of the WT, from 1991 – it sums up what Moon is doing nicely and is from a panel discussion anyone who claims to know anything about the WT had better watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9008719207533458404&hl=en
Whelan:
On the WT “independence”:
April 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pmhttp://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/2004/10/independent-washington-times.html
ralph the wonder llama Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TRoS, I think it has to do with the fierce battle to rise to the top of the troll heap. [... ...] It’s a simple evolutionary process. I mean, it’s a simple God-ordained creation process.
______________
You mean, like some sort of primitive, animalistic mating ritual, like when big horn sheep bang into each endlessly, trying to establish dominance?
Don’t they get BAD, BAD headaches after a while?
Or, perhaps, more like the way other antlered males, such certain species of deer, deliberately douse themselves w/ their own urine in a frenzied attempt to attract females.
That would kinda ’splain why so many of the trolls reek the way they do, huh, Ralphie, me boyo?
Also ’splains why I sometimes feel like I’m watching an episode of “Wild Kingdom” when I come to TP…
April 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThe KOS link above messed up.
here is the link to some info on Moon’s swindled cash:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/9/13513/46197/94/234851
an do NOT miss this MUST SEE short video from Gorenfeld
http://www.thekingofamerica.com/
April 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pmWow. That makes sooooo much sense. I never connected the two things before.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pmthis link is every slow loading but if you hang in there you can read about how one former WT editor with some principles explained to Tony Snow, when Snow was considering taking the job at the WT, that the WT was a moonie operation.
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/ 2006/ 04/ 26/ my-encounter-with-tony-snow/
April 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pmTry one last time. Wish we had a preview screen.
Maybe a tiny will work:
http://tinyurl.com/3tvtzz
April 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pmSeems to me that barfly provided quite an adequate answer:
Oh, sorry, did I spoil your “show up three hours later and pretend to get in the last word” strategy? My bad.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pmThe_Right_Stuff Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Three hours since this question was posed, and still not a single “Progressive” can provide an answer. Methinks they doth protest about nothing.
__________________
Three hrs since we pointed out there was no “quote” in the article.
Me thinks the wee trollie is grammatically challenged.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pmHere’s your answer, *sshat…
_____________
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/readers/index.php?title=how_to_refer_to_gay_people&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
How to refer to gay people?
The N&O has been writing a good bit about issues involving gay people lately, and one aspect of the coverage has troubled readers in the gay community.
They object to the use of the word “homosexual,” calling it an archaic usage that refers more to a sex act than to individuals or a community. The preference, they say, is “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” as appropriate, or a combination of all four, using the acronym “LGBT.” The issue came up in a story Sunday.
Orange County Commissioner Mike Nelson, in his blog, called The N&O homophobic for continuing the usage: “It’s time to join the 21st Century, News & Observer,” Nelson wrote. “African-Americans aren’t called Negro anymore; women aren’t called ‘ladies;’ handicapped aren’t called ‘cripples;’ and Gay people aren’t called ‘homosexual.’”
Nelson said referring to gay people as homosexual plays into the hands of right wingers purveying the stereotype “that being gay is about a sex act.”
Steve Merelman, who oversees The N&O’s copy desk, says the paper has no prescribed writing and editing style for the usage. In practice, “gay” and “lesbian” are used regularly as a synonym for “homosexual.” He added,
“It’s hard for me to understand the argument that the word ‘homosexual’ is strictly focused on a sex act. It means attracted to someone of the same sex, which seems fair enough.”
If the homosexual usage is offensive to the gay community, I think the paper should avoid it. Nor would I use the clunky “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender” as a regular catch-all for the communmity, or even the acronym “LGBT.” Acronyms in stories confuse or stop readers.
________________
Of course, this does beg the question, why are YOU obsessed w/ it? It’s kinda like Conservapedia… all these admitted cons… apparently FASCINATED w/ the topic… making it by FAR the most research subject at the website.
Any cogent observations… about your OWN behavior?
April 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pmSaaay… where’d Wrong_Stuff go?
He was just here shootin’ offin’ his mouf a few minutes ago?
April 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pmWrong-O also seems to have a slight reading comprehension problem.
It continues to challenge liberals to explain the policies of the WSJ — I mean, the WaTimes.
Whas up wi’ DAT?
April 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pmA trolls whole function in life is to steer meaningful discussions into the gutter – bring up only the horseshit they have been conditioned to talk about so they can put a fog over reality.
Hard to figure why TP allows it. One has search through the comments for anything of value and that is the troll’s goal. TP lets them get away with it.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pmIf so, why do “Progressives” object to the use of the phrase? What is wrong with it?
Again, your premise, that “progessives” object to the phrase is baloney, as I just pointed out.
But (there’s always a but) you might consider the fact that “gay” is simply easier to type, or write, than “homosexual.” You can type “gay” three times in the same space it takes to type “homosexual.” Or did that one zoom right past you?
April 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pmSo Righty, it isn’t that we disaprove of “homosexual,” as much as we prefer “gay.” It’s simple shorthand.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:23 pmPernell Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
A trolls whole function in life is to steer meaningful discussions into the gutter – bring up only the horseshit they have been conditioned to talk about so they can put a fog over reality.
Hard to figure why TP allows it. One has search through the comments for anything of value and that is the troll’s goal. TP lets them get away with it.
________________
I’ve wondered about that too, Pernell.
The threads here can get pretty messy sometimes, but there’s also a kind of really free give-and-take you don’t get at other websites.
I guess free speech is a strange and mysterious substance, and a work-in-progress. I wonder if TP does this deliberately? They did give us the ability to flag truly offensive trolls, and it seems when they do get enough flags, they blip the offender outta here. Democracy in action, no?
Kinda like that show “Survivor” where the other contestants vote each other off the island.
Free speech and democracy… we’re still working out the bugs.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:27 pmChecked in his ideology, checked out his idiotology.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pmThe words “Fair and balanced” are now so degraded from use by Fox News that it is surprising any “serious” journalist would use them – but then we can ask, is Solomon “serious” enough? Just how “serious” can you get? “Serious” enough or more than enough?
April 7th, 2008 at 3:54 am