NY Magazine Article Doesn’t Explain Media Hatred But Offers an Example Instead
By Daily Bell Staff - August 14, 2016

New York Magazine Makes “The Case Against the Media” Editor Genevieve Smith tells Folio: why now’s the time to dig deep into public distrust … On July 25, New York magazine featured a cover story that immediately sparked interest among those in media, called “The Case Against the Media. By the Media.” – Folio

At the end of July, New York magazine tried to investigate reasons Americans hate mainstream media without much success.

The article was very long and featured numerous interviews with journalists. So much obvious effort let us know this was an “important” story. But it droned on and on for 75,000 words without ever coming to a conclusion.

It was more like notes for a story than an actual article.

But no matter. New York Magazine basically wants us to understand that the media investigates its own. That was one of the reasons to write it. Now no one can accuse Western media of not trying to figure out what’s going on.

We were going to respond to the article, but it was just too lengthy and complex. At least this fairly brief Folio article, excerpted above, gives us something to react to, though it doesn’t really come to a conclusion either.

One of the criticism made by interviewees was that news reporting had become overly objective. The reporter was supposed to provide both sides of a given issue, and then you could make up your own mind where you stood.

The trouble with objective journalism has to do with the sides you provide.

If you’re writing about war, for instance. You can write that US is wrong to kill thousands of women and children in the pursuit of larger “national security” objectives.

But you better also write about the strategy behind the war and its necessity in the view of many – not really for purposes of objectivity but because the corporation that owns the news outlet is selling weapons to the government.

Of course you dress it up as objectivity. Killing innocent women and children is never right. Two sides are not necessary. It’s wrong to blow up women and children in a war that you started.

More from the article:

Publishing this cover story posed … risks because it’s unusually long for the magazine. According to Smith, the transcript from the 48 interviews was 75,000-words-long in the end.

The story has 53 different subsections, plus an introduction explaining the magazine’s reasoning for investigating this issue …

Smith admits she’s unsure if readers will take the time to read through the article, but so far, she believes it’s doing well. A spokesperson from New York magazine said it was too early to release analytics on the article.

We can assure Smith she doesn’t have to worry. The story is virtually unreadable.

Stories are supposed to have a beginning, a middle and an end. A good new story ought to come to a conclusion as well. That gives you something to react against.

Reporting used to be better. Before the Civil War, the idea of objectivity wasn’t especially popular. Many publications were fairly direct about their editorial biases.  You had a point of view and you reported on it.

Like everything else this changed after the Civil War. And today, “objectivity” is taught at journalism school. As with so many other elements of Western society, objectivity is a thematic element designed to advance control of society.

You see, there is a group of people who derive their power from central banking and want to control the world. This is something that modern journalism resolutely leaves unreported. And this vast lacuna poisons everything else that is being written.

The wealth produced by central banking is almost unfathomable. It has allowed “owners” to create a world filled with propaganda. Everything from global warming to politics and economics has been specially positioned to frighten you into accepting government solutions, the bigger the better.

The news media is merely part of this larger approach to global information. The reason that the news is filled with terrible stories is to continue this campaign of terrorism. People resent it, but even today many are not able to put into words what exactly they despise.

Information on the ‘Net as well as patterns that have been revealed have allowed us to understand a lot of what is going on. Certainly professional reporters should be able to see what is occurring.

But this New York Magazine article doesn’t provide us with this elemental information. Instead it gives us 75,000 words of objectivity. It is a perfect example of why people hate the mainstream media more and more. They can see simple truths on the Internet that are never reflected in the West’s most prestigious publications.

Conclusion: Ironically, the New York Magazine article was intended to explain the gathering hatred for the media. Instead, it seems to provide a further example of it.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Your $50 Ticket to the “$100 Billion Pot Stock Bonanza”

The $100 billion marijuana industry is dominated by penny stocks…

With legalization sweeping the country, these penny stocks have already begun skyrocketing in price…

Take action TODAY, and you have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn a tiny $50 investment into an absolute fortune.

Click here to find out how.

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • Conclusion: Ironically, the New York Magazine article was intended to explain the gathering hatred for the media. Instead, it seems to provide a further example of it.

    And that be a sure enough sign of, well, both wilful ignorance and cognitive dissonance, and clear and transparent evidence of an intellectually challenged system in rapid terminal decline ……. and of bit players stuck in the catastrophically destructive rut of vainly trying to valiantly defend the indefensible and defeat the indispensable and indefatigable.

    And what does one call persons and/or systems which serially fails to learn new tricks for day and zero day trades?

    • alex

      A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

    • alex

      The Daily Bell said:

      “What significant alternative ‘Net websites have forthrightly stated that nuclear weapons don’t exist.”
      Now, go on and tell us how this site is not “significant.”

      • That site is shut down.

        • alex

          Is that why I was able to link to it?

          Because “That site is shut down.”??

          Ahh… there we go!

          I just tried to repost the link to “big-lies”… and guess what happened??? DB has shut the link down!

          Take the Daily Bell with a grain of salt folks.

          They have their own agenda: Cannabis and Columbia.

          • The site has been inactive for years, and thus “shut down.” Also you imply we are trying to interfere with your use of it, even though we have linked to numerous articles from it ourselves. You are misrepresenting DB and have continued to do so even after we asked you to stop. You are finished here.

          • mary

            DB, I think I’ve heard some recent interviews by the purveyor of that site. He said the message boards are archived but i think he does add to the site.

            He seems to be of the opinion that nuclear power is also a hoax, which is too much of a stretch for me. Also that radiation is non toxic, which I’m sorry to say is ridiculous, imho.

          • We’ve never seen any changes and there is a big explanation at the larger site of why it was all shut down due to an argument between the two leading individuals. If it is added to, it must be minimal at best.

  • mary

    James Corbett’s newsletter this week has a similar theme, the msm admitting bias. It’s all pretend. These articles allow them to say, “We covered our failings,” and move on with their propaganda and, as DB says, being the medium for directed history. It’s all just another psyop.

    • Sebastian Pittman

      The Corbett Report also recently had a video interview with Jerry Day that contained great insights. He suggested that a social conflict is looming between people who accept being controlled and between us who want to be free. A very shocking but propably true speculation.

      • Dimitri Ledkovsky

        This conflict is “looming” and palpable. I have felt it from people whose outlooks I previously thought I understood and trusted. No more. They have become measured and defensive.

        • mary

          I fear there are so few of us who want to be free that the conflict will be short.

    • alaska3636

      The medium is the message.

  • Sebastian Pittman

    I guess the truth movement (which is all I want from the media) now has arrived in phase two. Now truth is not getting ridiculed anymore. Now it is being explained. In terms of power politics: Now truth is being fought.

    That might actually mean violence in one way or another. But just because truth was only being ridiculed before didn’t mean that times were less dangerous.

    Good thing is that there is not next step. For the next step is that everybody will accept truth as self-evident.

    And never forget that we actually never fight the elite. We always fight the bad culture they push. We need to promote good culture like peacefull parenting, living according to the non aggression principle, acknowledge the benefits of free speech and the free market. If we fight the good fight then evil will lose automatically.

    • alaska3636

      This is a good point. A system like US Fed Gov and it’s tentacles in large Corporations and the MSM self-select for people for whom the “truth” is self-evident. Thus arrives the issue elucidated by CS Lewis:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. I would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      One problem with the Overton Window in MSM, is that the truth is completely taken for granted, and that vis-a-vis my comment above, that some people may have grounds to disagree with the narrative.

      • mary

        Yes, as Isabel Patterson said, the humanitarian with a guillotine.

        ps glad to see someone else knows about the Overton Window. Tom Woods mentions it, but I think without knowing the source of the concept, when he refers to the “index card of allowable opinion.” 😉

        • alaska3636


          I was only recently introduced to that term, but it is useful for analyzing a number of relevant topics. I have written on the Overton Window and Historicism here:

          Historicism is another interesting topic that Mises made reference to a lot. I didn’t understand its import until I realized that the Overton Window is what makes historicism useful for advancing dominant social themes.

          It is basically a matter of taking a certain worldview for granted as being necessary and obvious when it is not. It is this Dreamtime that binds the populace into accepting certain policies.

          • mary

            Exactly. I was introduced to the Overton Window many moons ago through the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. They were trying to open wide the window with their position that government schooling is purposely harmful and should be abolished. Marshall Fritz was working hard to have separating school and state a known phrase. Since his death, it’s been laying fallow. I hope that will change soon.

  • nathenism

    it appears to me that the goal of the mainstream media is to be purely subjective while tricking people that it is being purely objective and just reporting the facts…there is nothing wrong with a reporter giving his opinion as long as he makes it clear that it is not an objective truth…this is what i see from mainstream “journalists”…they cleverly twist and distort a one sided opinion until it has the appearance of a fact

    if they want to demonize something, say pot, they will distort the “pot is bad” opinion until it looks like an objective truth…even “war is bad” is still a subjective opinion..the best way to clarify the objective reality of war would be to point out the consequences of war and the chaos it causes, and how nothing is ever improved upon…

    this article has confused me a bit and given me something to ponder…i always thought objectivity was good and subjectivity was the cause of so much confusion and bickering…maybe what journalists are being taught is how to dress up subjectivity and make it appear to be objective fact?

    • Praetor

      My objective is to make people believe my lies are the truth and all truth becomes subjective!!!

    • EDD

      I should have read your post before I submitted mine. It seems we have a commonality of opinion regarding subjective vs objective.

    • alaska3636

      I thought that the article was clear: the MSM reports facts within the narrative, or the Overton Window of acceptable political discourse.

      The problem is that they don’t acknowledge the Window and thus, their “reporting” is colored by what they take for granted, i.e. the need for “private” central banking and increasingly larger government purview over market regulations.

      At least within a subjective framework, where a premise is stated and than reported on, there remains the possibility of discussion and agreement or disagreement. The NY Mag article is typical of the problem because they don’t acknowledge that disagreement might be with the premise. Thus, the confusion: the public doesn’t agree with the premise; but, journalists, who are taught to take the Overton Window for granted, assume the problem is a rejection of the method which may or may not be “objective”.

      • nathenism

        i think i get it now…well, a little bit..the thing that gets me is that the mainstream seems to have fused subjectivity and objectivity and doesn’t acknowledge that there’s a difference…to them everything they say is just fact…and everything they take for granted is not up for debate…i think that’s the point…right?

  • Praetor

    What we despise is the whole system of propaganda lies and distortions of reality and truth.

    The false reality that comes out of the ministry of truth through its machine called the telescreen is their problem. That problem, the user can pull the plug and the machine will not function, and the propaganda stops.

    The constant barrage of divide and conquer, the strategy of separation of the human specie into categories of differences based on race, gender, culture or any other categories that they wish to create, can be stopped by pulling that plug.

    There are only two types of humans, man and women, the rest are just manufactured false dogma of a by-gone-era of regressive thinkers, who’s goal is to maintain their control!!!

    • Boysie

      Great comment – and to the point – Yes – Pull The Plug – (PTP)

  • concerndcitizen

    To simplify and control things, there are always two sides presented. This gives the false illusion of choice. The Hegelian dialectic.

    In reality, they are two sides of the same coin and there are many of different coins and therefore many other choices. People need to free their minds of this artificial construct, or they will have no chance for a future.

    • disqussted999

      This is big problem with all media, and especially the controlled MSM, and I agree that the hegelian dialectic is one example of how this problem is used to control, confuse, and finally conform minds. We cannot define “truth” or “reality” (as an interesting aside, to me, the Greek word for “truth” is actually more akin to ours for “reality”) by using the words “objective” and “subjective.” Those two words simply describe a way of dealing with the “facts” or with the “evidence” that one has, or that one has been given. I can deal quite objectively with two facts and come to an objective conclusion that I see as correct or true (2+2=4), until I find out that those facts were lies (it was actually 2+3). At that point, no matter how objective my first conclusion was, it was false.

      I can equally deal with a set of facts/information and come to a subjective conclusion. The “fact” is that the huge majority of what we have to deal with and the conclusions we have to come to in life are subjective, since none of us is God and knows everything, especially what is going on in another person’s heart, or often even in our own. And the fact is that “subjective” can be absolute truth. I may see someone smile and subjectively determine that they are mocking me. I may be absolutely correct, despite the fact that it is a subjective conclusion, and despite the fact that objectively speaking, they’re simply smiling.

      And I could go into more aspects of this, the spiritual one, for instance, God states in His Word that what we can see now (we would call it “objective” b/c it’s an “object”) is temporary, but what we can’t see (yet) is eternal. If indeed God is true, and that truly is God speaking, then that really would really turn objective/subjective on its head as the (subjective) hope we have becomes actual (objective) reality, and all we can see and think we understand with our human minds to be reality really isn’t and simply disappears…but I won’t go there any farther.

      So “objective” and “subjective” to me are not particularly useful in my search for real truth. What I want humanly speaking (from reporters, information gatherers, etc) are all the pertinent facts and information that could be found, whether “objective” or “subjective,” since often NONE of us knows which is which, and the freedom to come to my own conclusions about what they mean. That is something our MSM no longer offers to any of us.

  • EDD

    While not trying to be too hard on the DB staff, perhaps it would be better stated in the following: “One of the criticism made by interviewees was that news reporting had
    become overly objective. The reporter was supposed to provide both sides
    of a given issue, and then you could make up your own mind where you

    Definition of Objective and Subjective

    Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched
    by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by
    looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.

    Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the
    speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the
    perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be
    verified ‘using concrete facts and figures’.

    Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between

    Therefor, the reporting is not ‘overly objective’, but enters into the realm of ‘subjective reporting’. The ideas of global warming, racial inequality, fed manipulation and other memes too many to list, actually have become a ‘subjective’ viewpoint. For a reporter in the msm arena to be completely objective would be to ‘bite the hand’ that feeds him. It becomes a choice of personal survival.

    To further illustrate this: ‘Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions’. (Source above). For example: in the case of ‘global warming’, a reporter has to take a position which does not have concrete facts behind the assertion, but merely the opinions of certain scientists whose interests is grants or other conditions which is also self preservation modes. Since it is the same financial entity providing the support for each person within this context, the dialectic is the assured winner, to the detriment of the average citizen.

    While not always stating the differences in my posts, I try to remain within these parameters due to certain ‘subjective experiences’ which, for me, has been a major influence in my worldview. What is true is the difficulty in translating the experience(s) into something resembling an ‘objective’ concept. And, (I do not apologize for it), this is my reason for my lengthy posts. The more succinctly the statement, the less likely it will be taken out of context.

    • Not quite sure what point you’re making but “objectivity” allows the reporter or editor to set parameters that defy common sense (see example we gave about war). See ConcerncedCitizen comment just below.

      • EDD

        I guess nathenism and I have the same confusion when objective and subjective is used. To be objective is to be completely unbiased. Subjective is colored by the writer’s intent.

        The word objective has no other parameters other than unbiased. Imo, a writer can attempt to create ‘objective parameters’, but when he/she does, it becomes only an illusion of objectivity thus fulfilling the dialectic. It takes a subjective viewpoint to manipulate the play on words.

        • Journalists often refer to “objectivity.” We’re using the word as they use it in order to make a larger point.

  • Webforager

    Personally, I find mainstream narrators obnoxious because they don’t challenge what I consider ‘structural’ assumptions. These structures are considered inviolable in order to predicate obligation by force, because of an accident of birth within a particular geography, and issue sketchy justifications, like elections of representatives, binding individuals and conscripting resources to further certain objectives. These word-wizards confine thinking within these structures and promote differing values and incentivize agitation while people readily line up in the struggle to impose, and defend against the impostion of, differing values within this confine.
    To my mind, the only manner of objective journalism is the description of objects/identities in motion and any other use of the term, “objectivity” in journalism is a lame attempt at credibility.

  • Jim Johnson

    In schools of the 60’s, kids were well aware there were Hiigh School versions of history (G-rated) and college versions (full on everything, including X-rated). We trusted that all would come clear if we went on with our education, and indeed, I much enjoyed talking with college profs and students. But I found all of it even then was fast becoming select information dissemination. Propaganda, and now with the internet, I can see just how far down this rabbit hole we have traveled. I trust none of the established perspectives. To correct one version is to destabilize another in unintended ways, and so we clamp down, fearing modern civilization will quickly spiral out of control, and crash. It appears this will happen of its’ own inertia, so take great care when we go all French Revolution looking for ‘bad guys’. All i see now are dykes being plugged. Along with a monetary Reset, let us understand we shall also need an information reset. I must believe the future will then open to opportunities once hoarded by these privileged few. The best way, the only way I have ever found in dealing with Fear is to turn and face it head on, with no guarantee you will survive. But living under and behind rocks is not living, either. Buck up, Kids. We have a helluva ride coming at us. Grab hold of your neighbors, tribe up, and maintain a high level of decency about you. This won’t be for 30-something children.

  • wrusssr

    Your article and the one below gets to the heart of what people instinctively are beginning to understand now, thanks to the Internet — deliberate (subtle, direct) hatchet jobs on Trump, free passes and softballs tossed to the Marxist — all brought to you by those wonderful folks who saved us from the deadly Swine Flu Pandemic, E-bola scythe, invasion of the Zeka skeeters, and a vaccine buffet to protect us cradle-to-grave.

    Every Television Newscast Is a Staged Event

    America and the world at large has no important “news” (unless it’s released for a reason). Hasn’t had since the first part of last century. What we have are professionally-staffed propaganda outlets and publications controlled by the international banking cartel and intelligence agencies (CIA, et al), such as the NY Times; from which propaganda pros continue to hose the world with familiar fuzzies and manufactured terror and stress; buying time until they can come up with a new model that will work amid the Internet’s exponential day-to-day transparency.

    Oz and their ilk running countries of the world still fear the written word. Truth. 50-something reporters are killed annually these days worldwide. Done right, it’s a dangerous, underpaid occupation in a world run by despots, liars, deceivers, killers.

    For “newsmen/women” on board, though, they sky’s the limit. And for that kind of money, as said, it’s hard to find fault with something, if your salary depends upon you not finding it.

  • Earn nest

    Just in case anyone missed this week’s state department news briefing chek this out.

  • jrrrr

    Actually “objectivity” is the identification of which a particular cause results in what particular effects, so as to reapply cause in the successful pursuit of desired effects. This process of mental evaluation of desired effects, the physical implementation of cause as means to same, and the observation of the results, as failure or success in producing desired effects, is the evidence needed to make conclusions regarding the difference between facts and error.

    After centuries of this objectively derived evidence of causes and their effects, humanity has accumulated a dependable body human knowledge, by which each can predict which of their actions will result in desired effects and which the opposite of expectations. (For example the implementation of a socialist welfare state, as means to peaceful prosperity has been observed to cause effects opposite of expectations; those effects being massive poverty and social and political conflict, validating the objectively derived conclusion that socialism results in the exact opposite of the expected peaceful prosperity. )

    This objective process of using cause and effect verification to make factual conclusions is the media’s job. The process is the knowledge needed to initially acquire knowledge, document that presented as knowledge by others, as well as to resolve errors evidenced by the realization of consequences other than those expected.

    This objectivity regarding cause, effects and conclusions is exactly what the media does not use, so as to present bias (especially reformist socialist bias) as the news. As follows…

    “If we stop claiming to be mere objective observers, it will not end the charges of bias but will allow us to defend what we do from a more realistic, less hypocritical position.” Columbia Journalism Review. David Cunningham.

    So straight from Columbia J-School the advice is…if the media stops pretending it’s propaganda is objective factual news, we can stop the accusations of hypocrisy.

    Unsurprisingly J-school graduates agree…“Most strikingly, the journalists we spoke to responded to the biggest criticism by embracing it: Yes, the media imposes what might be called its own bias, but that’s its job.” New York Magazine Makes The Case Against the Media

  • Pedestrian

    Excellent piece, DB!

  • georgesilver

    Once upon a time in the not too distant past there were newspapers and plenty of them where people received the ‘news’. Then along came film Pathe News etc. and eventually television. The majority believed what they were being told because there wasn’t an alternative. Then came the internet revolution. A large sweetshop of pick and mix news sweets of many flavours. The better internet news providers made people aware of the bias and one-sided propaganda pumped out by the mainstream media and it’s small cartel of owners. Now many people regard mainstream media as just a propaganda arm of vested interests. Most intelligent people now just look at the mainstream media headline stories in order to ascertain how the cartel wants them to be directed. Once you realise this you can make appropriate decisions in your own interests.

    • Yes, georgesilver, it is as simple as that.

      Methinks though the difficulty for systems nowadays is to trial and trail something worthy of following and believing.

      And that is an art which can as quickly destroy one as reward one. Some would even consider it one of the dark arts too, and proffer it as such in order to discourage play in the exercising of the notions one might like to share and remotely virtually realise as a current running actuality and media hosted expanding event/Great Game Play.

  • jrrrr

    Oh, read the comments and this was satire! I’m so sorry, too subtle for me. Thought DB had decided to throw in the towel and I was outraged, as I had been enjoying the articles, so much. Just ignore my outburst.

    Thought DB was agreeing with today’s pervasive thought that because the circumstances of reality are of constant change, the use of objective analysis to correct these errors, somehow invalidates the use of objective analysis, as well as turning all knowledge into a “maybe. ”

    This amounts to the idea that since one can’t know everything, one can’t know anything as a final fact, to use in the prediction of future consequences. This really gets my goat. I have a constant urge to insist that this perpetual doubt can be instantly resolved by leaping off a mountaintop with the intention of floating gently to the ground, thereby discovering that cause and effects exist, making objectively derived facts possible, after all, and they are, indeed, final.

    This is the point the article was making, so good article and apologies all around.

  • apberusdisvet

    Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation have been around for quite some time. If you review the old WWII news reports, knowing what you know now, you can point out the examples. But today it is far worse. Forget the obvious media bias on Trump vis a vis Clinton, for example, the lies being told today are simply egregious. Fox is a good example, although other news outlets are far worse. Anything regarding the proxy war in Syria, or the Ukraine/Crimea situation can be summarized as US =Good; Russia = Bad, when the reverse is true. The US Navy Seal that supposedly killed Bin Laden is on a lot as a geopolitical pundit, even though his story is false and the one told by the USG is laughable. The CIA/Pentagon et al admit that Bin Laden had Marfan’s Disease prior to 200l which is always fatal. Please note that Bin Laden was a CIA asset and at the time of 9/11 was being treated in a US Navy medical facility. His death was even announced by Fox News in December 2001, and confirmed by the PM of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, in a David Frost interview. It’s just not shading the truth these days, it is totally eliminating it.

  • philip

    Hi DB great article. Here is another article
    It was in the Globe and Mail Aug 13th by Fred McMahon (Fraser Institute resident fellow)”A tragedy fed by cronyism and the death of free markets”. As an editorial “Changes in Economic Freedom in Venezuela, Ireland and the United States”. 30-40 thousand words , numerous graphs, a lot of information and not one word about the Federal Banking Systems. Philip

  • Agent Revolver

    …SomeOnE might find SomeTHInG to be unexplainable in rational terms. By design, this bitsequense makes a Stock Overflow in classic accounting.

    And… well done, DB, dilemma #1: ‘Net media vs PaperVision.

    Media… don’t kill the messenger (-; It’s in our heads. They don’t want to think, their owners work too much (how much they get in return, is just another story).

    And, of course, no one is going to read a 75K Grossbuch in order to squeeze just a tiny drop of sense from.

    Does anybody else understand why the article we are commenting was signed “DB Staff”?

    • Because it was written by DB staff. Much as Economist Magazine articles are written by Economist staff.

      • Agent Revolver

        …And because ONE common mortal can’t find sense in not only analyzing 75 000 words, but even in reading them, if it is not a fiction book or a novel or something you read “for yourself”. Staff means more than one. This is what I wanted to tell, but it was night time at my place… sorry, if my tiny two cents will be removed for, hmm, shining not as bright as other coins in the box – Hi All, if you are reading it 🙂

  • Ed

    Calling Things by Their True Names would be very helpful.