CHAPTER FIFTEEN: FAIR AND BALANCED

Part Three of History of a Calamity: It's a Hack's Life

Mar 12, 2023

Sometimes history can turn on a tiny change in the rules. On August 4, 1987, America’s Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, met in Washington DC to consider changing a broadcast regulation: the Fairness Doctrine.

C-Span coverage of FCC hearing and vote on eliminating the Fairness Doctrine

Dennis Patrick, FCC chairman began the hearing, “Commissioners, first on our Mass media agenda is item number 1: an alternative to the Fairness Doctrine obligation.”

Eleven hasty minutes of testimony later, Patrick said, “The commission believes the Public interest is best served by a free and unfettered marketplace of ideas, So if there are no other questions or comments, we will vote on this item.”

The voice vote was unanimous, all were in favor of finding an alternative to the Fairness Doctrine.

The vote barely made the news. That same day in the Capitol Building the Iran-Contra hearings were drawing to a close and Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court a few weeks earlier was still being parsed by the Beltway press.

Over a fairly short period of time Iran-Contra would fade from the nation’s consciousness. The ins and out outs of the illegal scheme to cirumvent Congress’s rule preventing funding of the right-wing Nicaraguan Contra rebels by secretly selling weapons to Iran—also illegal— and sending the money to the Contras were too complicated to follow.

The ultimate defeat of the Bork nomination would become the second count on the modern Republican Party’s revenge charge sheet after the forced resgination of Richard Nixon. Its effects played out in the GOP’s thirty year long campaign to pack the Supreme Court with its ideologues.

But you could make a very strong case that eliminating the Fairness Doctrine would have the deepest effect on American society. This bureaucratic decision would lead quickly to a coarsening of public discourse that has deepened ideological divisions and unleashed a propaganda for profit strain of “news” media that has misinformed citizens for more than three and a half decades.

The Fairness Doctrine—in place from 1949 to 1987—was not a law. It was an “obligation” on commercial broadcast licence holders. It is briefly mentioned, without the portentous word “Doctrine” in a paper published by the Federal Communication Commission titled: Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees Docket no. 8516, Report of the Commission:

“1. To affirm the obligation of the licensees to insure that a fair and equal presentation of all sides of controversial issues is made over their facilities.”

The story of this rule and its repeal begins more than a century ago in the aftermath of World War 1. The technology for wireless transmission of voice messages via radio waves had been invented in the first decade of the twentieth century. It found application during the war and in the 1920s entrepreneurs realized there was a vast market for home entertainment via this same technology. It was also clear to governments that radio—the internet of its time—was a powerful tool for disseminating political information and shaping public opinion.

The problem was that the radio wave spectrum was a limited space. While it was possible to simply set up a transmitter and go on the air there wasn’t enough spectrum for everyone who might want to do so. Governments had to be involved.

Authorities took different approaches to overseeing broadcasting. In Britain, for example, the government decided to control the radio spectrum in the national interest and limited what was available for business use.

The manufacturers of radio equipment for shipping and military purposes wanted to expand into home entertainment but they had no programming to entice people to buy their radio sets. So the manufacturers set up the British Broadcasting “Company” to make programs. But making enough programs to fill out the day or even part of the day, seven days a week, was expensive and the “Company” went bust. The government stepped in and established the British Broadcasting “Corporation” to provide programs. The BBC would be funded by a tax in the form of a licence fee imposed on every home which had a radio set.

In the US, geographically vast and entrepreneurially vibrant, radio stations erupted all over the country. People wanted entertainment in their homes and radio delivered it. In 1922 alone, 550 stations were set up of varying transmission power. There wasn’t enough available radio spectrum for all of them. There had been a pre-World War 1 government attempt to allocate spectrum. But back then radio was not a very popular medium. Now commercial pressures led to lawsuits and the existing regulations were finally overturned by the courts in 1926. New legislation was prepared to impose some order on the free for all.

Just as with the internet in the 21st century the potential for radio to alter society was obvious to legislators. In 1927, Congress debated new legislation and took into account the words of Luther Johnson, a Texas Democrat:

“American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”

That same year the Radio Act was passed and brought to an end the wild west free for all. The radio spectrum was parcelled up and licenced out to entrepreneurs. The Federal Radio Commission was established as part of the act and this became the FCC in a subsequent broadcasting act.

In 1923, the first year radio sets became widely available, only one percent of American households owned one. More than seventy-five percent of American homes had a radio set by the time Franklin D. Roosevelt became president a decade later.

The Boone family of Maplelawn Farm in Indiana listening to the radio

The 1930s is remembered as the Golden Age of radio but mixed in with the entertainment and the drama serials this era regularly underscored the warnings of Luther Johnson and others. Demagogues were given regular platforms by radio station owners to spread their messages.

As the decade moved towards another war in Europe, pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic voices built large followings through radio. Father Charles Coughlin was the most notorious. Coughlin’s weekly broadcasts from his Church of the Little Flower in Michigan, was listened to by one in five Americans. In his Sunday broadcast following Kristallnacht in 1938, Coughlin expressed regret at the scale of the pogrom—damages to Jewish property were reported to be around $400 million—but offered this justification for the murderous violence:

In all countries Jews are in the minority. They have no nation 
of their own; they have no flag. The World Almanac states 
that there are only 15-million Jews in all the world and only 4- 
million resident in North America. Certainly they are in the mi¬ 
nority—but a closely woven minority in their racial tendencies; a 
powerful minority in their influence; a minority endowed with an 
aggressiveness, an initiative which, despite all obstacles, has carried 
their sons to the pinnacle of success in journalism, in radio, in 
finance and in all the sciences and arts. 

Thus, with these facilities at their disposal, no story of persecu¬ 
tion was ever told one-half so well, one-half so thoroughly as the 
story of this $400-million reprisal which culminated a series of 
persecutions. Perhaps, may I resubmit, this is attributable to the 
fact that Jews, through their native ability, have risen to such high 
places in radio and in press and in finance; perhaps this persecu¬ 
tion is only the coincidental last straw which has broken the back 
of this generation's patience.

Coughlin asked his audience to think about why the Nazis might have taken this action against the Jews. The answer, National Socialism was founded as a “political defense mechanism against communism,” and Communism was not the product of Russia but a group of Jews. He offers proof:

Were there facts to substantiate this belief in the minds of the 
Nazi Party, I ask? 

Official information emanating from Russia itself informed the 
world that Communism, while barbarously opposed to every form 
of Christianity, made it a crime for any comrade to utter a single 
word of reproach against the Jews. 

...

More than that, the 1917 list of those who, with Lenin, ruled 
many of the activities of the Soviet Republic, disclosed that of the 
25 quasi-cabinet members, 24 of them were atheistic Jews, whose 
names I have before me.

There were many other voices of isolationism without the grim anti-Semitism of Father Coughlin. One of the most popular, with a listenership in the tens of millions, was the unlikely figure of Englishman Boake Carter.

These broadcasters shaped the anti-war feelings of much of the American electorate. In 1939, the year the war began in Europe, a Gallup poll showed only 18 percent of Americans were in favor of sending troops to aid Britain and France should war begin. These sentiments made it difficult for President Roosevelt to openly ally the country with Britain as Nazi Germany swiftly brought continental Europe under its hegemony.

In the aftermath of the war there was a re-examination of broadcasting’s role in the lead up to the conflict. This is what led the FCC in 1949 to add the “obligation” for fair and equal presentation of all sides of controversial issues.

It is axiomatic that one of the most vital questions of mass communications in a democracy is the development of an informed public opinion through the dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day.
Broadcast licensees have an affirmative duty generally to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial public issues
Radio should be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general public as a whole rather than as an outlet for purely personal or private interests of licensee.”

The Fairness Doctrine became a regulation just as radio was about to be superseded as the dominant form of broadcasting by television. And as in the 1920s there was a lot of discussion about how the new medium should develop, what it’s purpose should be. The experience of World War 2 and the years before shaped that discussion.

Television became popular more rapidly than radio had a mere twenty-five years earlier and was a much more expensive medium to provide programming for. Quickly commercial imperatives came to dominate program decisions. This imperative included news programming. Edward R. Murrow had broadcast back to America live from London, during the Blitz. After the War, he, became the founding father of television news. In 1958 Murrow gave a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors of America.

Murrow's words quickly became holy writ in the minds of broadcast journalists but as the Sixties went on criticism of broadcast news rose.

In the first decade after the war, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, a right-wing demagogue from Wisconsin, had run a fear campaign about alleged communists in the government. Using innuendo and character assassination he had ruined lives. In March, 1954, Murrow had done a whole program on McCarthy on his prime time current affairs show, See It Now. It was damning. A few months later the Senator was undone by his own hubris. He accused the US Army of being soft on communists. His star faded quickly and his alcoholism killed him off three years later.

But McCarthy’s world view survived and for those who thought the Wisconsin Senator had been hounded from public life, the slanted news media was to blame.

Where was the application of the Fairness Doctrine in the left-wing bias of the news? they asked.

As the Sixties unfolded with assassinations and race riots and the Civil Rights struggle and the burgeoning Vietnam war, it was hard not to present television news that did not implicitly make the point that America was not a perfect society. But for broadcast journalism’s right-wing political critics the journalism was not important. Reporting the news of social unrest, in their view, was a tool for indoctrinating the country with “liberal” ideas.

Ezra Taft Benson is one example. Benson served as Agriculture secretary in President Dwight Eisenhower’s cabinet, was a descendant of one of the founding families of the Church of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons. In those days the Mormon Church was a segregated institution.

Benson became an ardent proselytizer for the John Birch Society, an organization that exemplified the paranoid strain that is a characteristic of modern American conservatism, and a leading critic of broadcast news media. His views were distilled in a speech given in February 1966:

“By 1962 these American liberals had almost completely neutralized the resurgence of America patriotism … they had made it popular to call patriotism a controversial subject which should not be discussed in school assemblies or churches. From Washington DC, the FCC, the Federal Communications commission, issued an edict to radio and television stations that if they allowed the controversial subject of Americanism, anti-communism or states’ rights to be discussed on their stations they would be required to give equal time free of charge to anyone wishing to present an opposite view.”

Benson continued:

“Can you imagine this happening in a free country? I said to my family, “It is fantastic that anything like this could have happened in America.”

The Fairness Doctrine was under regular fire, although few of its critics really understood what it was. For the critics it was a useful way to target national network news even though the rule was an obligation on local stations. The confusion wasn’t entirely down to simplistic ideology confronting complicated reality.

American broadcasting is organized similarly to British drinking. Individual local stations affiliate themselves to a network, which provides programming in the same way that a tied pub carries brands of beer only from a particular brewery. The Doctrine was an obligation on the individual stations, not the networks. But that didn’t matter to the critics.

In America in the 1960s there were three main networks, each provided a half-hour evening newscast every day airing at 6:30 or 7 pm. These network shows became America’s first truly national news organizations and were extraordinarily popular. More than half the country’s adults watched one or another of them.

It may be apocryphal but when Walter Cronkite closed a broadcast shortly after the Tet offensive in February 1968 with these words:

“It is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honourable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.”

President Lyndon Johnson supposedly said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Whether he said it or not, a few weeks later the President announced he would seek peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese AND would not seek re-election.

Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon, was accompanied into office by three communications advisers/speechwriters who, while not as off the wall as Ezra Taft Benson, were inclined to think Joseph McCarthy had been hounded by the “liberal” media. They were William Safire, Pat Buchanan and Roger Ailes. Nixon assigned his Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, the job of attacking the news media and asked the team to write speeches for him. A typical speech might include sentiments like this:

“A raised eye-brow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or a government policy.”

Agnew’s complaint might have had some basis if the evening news shows were the only programs where politics was reported on. They weren’t. The evening newscasts didn’t even make up the majority of air time given to potentially controversial issues.

Network news and prime time programming only took up a small part of the day. Stations ran programs made locally or bought in from independent providers or syndicators, and this is where conservative views broke through. The best known conservative program on television was William F. Buckley with his program, Firing Line.

Through Firing Line and his conservative news magazine, National Review, Buckley, built a national profile. During the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago he was paired with novelist Gore Vidal, a voice of the left, to discuss events by one of the big three networks: ABC news. It was an example of the spirit that motivated the regulators who wrote the Fairness Doctrine, if not the good manners hoped for by the men who created it after World War 2.

Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-nazi”. Buckley retorted, “Now listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddam face and you’ll stay plastered.”

The place where Conservative voices dominated, though,was in local radio.

Hello Americans, this is Paul Harvey, stand by for News!

Paul Harvey was heartland conservatism personified. For fifty years he was syndicated at radio stations around the country, his show providing an eclectic daily news round-up with little editorial asides.

His voice, bright with optimism and stentorian with authority, carried well beyond the Midwest. In the late Fifties and Sixties, his daily broadcast could be heard on 1200 radio stations reaching 24 million people coast to coast.

In the back seat of the car driving through the suburbs, or on long two-lane black tops cutting straight lines across hundreds of miles of farmland the radio connected the country in ways that television didn’t. It was AM radio then, the cheapest form of transmission: in cars, on transistor radios perched on kitchen counters or attached to the dashboard in farm combines. AM stations reflected their communities and when you drove from one location to the next and flipped on the radio it was an education in the vast regional differences in America. Paul Harvey was the rare common voice.

I heard him in the car. His show went out at noon. It was the quirks in his delivery that caught my ear, unexpected pauses followed by bursts of words, an unteachable ability to be intimate with the listener creating a feeling in them of being directly spoken to. When he turned the page on his script, Harvey would drop his voice an octave and announce, “page two”. Harvey’s rapid run-through of the day’s news went back and forth from the political to the quirky to human interest. Amid the homespun humor, you could easily miss the political messages—the praise for J. Edgar Hoover, the occasional apologia for Joe McCarthy, the joking references to the latest crop failures in communist countries.

And, of course, then as now, evangelical Christian stations reached a large daily audience, with their messages from charismatic preachers invoking Christ against communistic social welfare programs and the federal debt and liberalism in general.

In 1967, a Billy James Hargis broadcast became the subject of a Fairness Doctrine complaint. An investigative reporter named Fred Cook had written a book several years earlier about Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater titled “Goldwater: Extremist on the Right.” Shortly after the book came out in 1964, in one of Hargis’s broadcasts, the preacher echoed Joe McCarthy’s tactics and alleged Cook was affiliated with communists. Among the stations that carried Hargis’s program was WGCB in south central Pennsylvania. The station was owned by Red Lion Broadcasting and Cook demanded equal time from the company to respond to the charge.

The station’s owners agreed to give the author a right of reply but wanted Cook to pay for his air time, the same rate as any advertiser. Invoking the obligation to fairness Cook sued, demanding a free air time for his reply. The FCC backed him. Red Lion Broadcasting then sued the FCC. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously in Cook and the FCC’s favour. The opinion was written by Justice Byron White who noted that broadcast entities should be treated differently than individual citizens when it comes to the First Amendment.

"without government control, the medium [radio] would be of little use because of the cacophony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard.”

A few years later the FCC removed the broadcast licence of another preacher, Carl McIntire, who actually owned his station. But the Hargis and McIntire cases were very much the exception rather than the rule,

During the decades it was in operation, there was very little enforcement of the Fairness obligations. The FCC did not have the budget to recruit people to monitor the relentless 24/7 output of America’s thousands of radio and television stations. Outlets whose owners’ political point of view was very much tilted towards small town conservatism.

Nevertheless, the rule’s very existence tempered the wilder shores of political broadcasting that would re-emerge after it was scrapped.

Donate to History of a Calamity

Throughout the 1970s elimination of the Fairness Doctrine became one more cause for American conservatives to fight for. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 the Fairness Doctrine’s days were numbered. He appointed a new head of the FCC, Mark Fowler, who had been lead spokesman for elimination of the rule in the years leading up to Reagan’s election.

Nearly four decades later I spoke with Fowler about the decision.

“The question is fair or free?”

Fowler’s view was the answer is obvious: free

“And what that means is that we are going to have “abuses”. We are going to have people on to the far right and to the far left, who are Nazis and who are communists expressing their viewpoints but who is to determine what the truth is? Is it the bureaucrats in government or do we rely on the common man and his inherent sensibilities to figure out from the welter of diverse viewpoints what is true and what he or she believes.”

Fowler said the decision to eliminate the obligation was not straightforward. Opinion among Reagan’s closest advisers was against repeal. They thought the Fairness Doctrine was all that was restraining the three networks—seen as liberal—from “all out war on the President.” The Fairness Doctrine’s existence meant that someone like former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan, a pugnacious and popular right wing voice, might be interviewed on the network news in order to provide balance in their reports

Fowler proudly recalled a summons to the White House and being invited to sit next to Reagan. The President’s top advisers stared daggers when Fowler told him,

“Mr. President we are taking your philosophy of freedom and applying it to broadcast content and the first amendment … And then some of his advisers spoke up and said this is not good for you politically they are going to tear you to pieces. President Reagan looked at me for a second and he winked and then he looked back at the group and I’ll never forget what he said. He said, ‘Well, they can hang me for 32 things already and this is just number 33. I’m going to back Mark on this.’”

The repeal train had left the station. A year after the 1987 vote American radio broadcasting was becoming unrecognizable

Rush Limbaugh, shortly after his move to New York

On the day the Fairness Doctrine was repealed Rush Limbaugh was the noon time disc jockey on KFBK in Sacramento, California. He mixed music and right-wing political commentary without the FCC raising a complaint. Eleven months later, on the fourth of July 1988, Limbaugh debuted in New York City as the centerpiece of ABC radio netwrok’s national daytime schedule. It wasn’t by chance. Reagan supporters in the media business knew the Fairness Doctrine was going to be axed. One of them, Ed McLaughlin, had already decided before the vote that Limbaugh would be the man to build ABC’s daily schedule around. Freed from any requirements for fairness or balance he built a line-up of right-wing talk, partially because he agreed with the viewpoint but also because he and ABC wanted to make money and there was lots of it to be made in right-wing outrage.

Two years earlier the ABC network of television and radio stations had been purchased by a small outfit called Capital Cities. ABC was four times bigger than Cap Cities but through the miracle of modern leveraged debt similar to what was used by Al Neuharth to build Gannett, the smaller company acquired ABC.

Limbaugh’s brilliance as a broadcaster and CapCities/ABC’s exploitation of outrage as a business proposition spawned imitators. Almost overnight, radio broadcasting had returned to the status quo of the 1930s and Father Coughlin, with less anti-Semitism.

There was an element in the argument about free speech on the airwaves that was overlooked when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed: The raw power of broadcasting to shape not just opinion but to sow social division. All the dire lessons of the 1930s were forgotten in America.

At the same time the particular power of broadcasting, especially radio broadcasting, to shape society was demonstrated in other places. In the early 1990s sustained campaigns of radio propaganda masquerading as “news and opinion” unraveled former Yugoslavia and then Rwanda.

Listening to exhortations to violence during Rwandan Genocide in 1994.

History as individuals live it is a subjective experience. We take the circumstances in which we first encounter the world as the beginning of the story and mark change from there. We assign beginnings greater weight. My career as a journalist, a hack, began in 1981 so when I say that the 1980s was an unprecedented time of epochal change in the news business it might just be a subjective assertion rather than an objective analysis … but I don’t think so.

Speed was always important to journalism but CNN’s launch in 1980 created the primacy of the instant. And with the need for instant reporting, journalistic practice changed.

Newspapers could not compete for speed with CNN, nor could they compete with evening news summaries but they remained important institutions in their communities, if only as a source of local advertising. At the beginning of the decade big city newspapers and many smaller ones were still family owned businesses, passed down like baronial fiefs, each generation operating them with a seigneurial sensibility. By the close of the 1980s Wall Street and the Reagan de-regulated world of finance had ended most family ownership of papers. New, more ruthless owners had used debt to purchase them and debt needed to be paid off, so the bottom line replaced noblesse oblige as the main concern of owners and this effected editorial content.

Heedless of broadcasting’s unique power to shape opinion and stoke outrage, local television news became more and more tabloid sensationalist.

And the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine would be a giant step leading America into an uncivil war that has intensified and become the defining characteristic of the society over the last 35 years.

There was one final element that came into play in the 1980s media that would play a significant role in America’s relentless march to calamity.

The primacy of the instant, the corporatization of media and the realization that outrage was the shortcut to profit, plus the elimination of an “obligation” to fairness and balance on “serious issues of public concern” helped lead to soundbite discourse. A soundbite is an assertion that is its own proof. Something is true because it is said and there is no time to question it. Dueling soundbites replaced substance in political debates.

During the 1968 presidential campaign between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, one quarter of soundbites on network news lasted a minute or longer, according to research by professor Daniel Hallin of the University of California San Diego. By 1988 only four percent of sound bites reached 20 seconds, the average was 8.9 seconds. In his paper Hallin provides a specific example:

We speak at roughly 3 words per second. What can you say in 8.5 seconds?

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition …”

And that’s only if Lincoln was speaking fast.

The summer the Fairness Doctrine was repealed I returned to the US to do a few stories for The Guardian and the BBC. It had been eighteen months since I moved to London and in that period of time I had learned a basic lesson of the freelance life: a few assignments could pay for a vacation someplace, or a trip to see my family.

It was the longest I had been out of the country in my life. The night before I left I was overcome by an anxiety that didn’t seem to have a reason. At sunrise I went for a walk on Hampstead Heath, my local park. The stroll aided with the physical side of the anxiety but it didn’t help me articulate to myself what was going on just beneath my consciousness. “Alienation” is the word I could not find that morning.

It would take several return journeys to understand that time and distance were making America a foreign country to this native son. It is a very odd concept to process: the new place where you live is foreign but one’s homeland is now also a foreign country. Immigrants returning to their home countries, home towns, ancestral villages feel this alienation: this is where I come from but it is not my place anymore. Mine/notmine.

When I finally started returning regularly to America for the BBC in the 1990s—the next part of this History of America’s Calamity will be based on my contemporaneous diaries of those journeys—the first change I noted had been wrought by the Fairness Doctrine’s repeal. It came shouting at me through the radio as I drove my rental car out of Chicago towards Yellow Springs, Ohio.

Rush Limbaugh’s cutting sarcasm had replaced Paul Harvey’s genial mockery as the style of conservative radio. In every locale there were less talented Rush imitators trading in outrage and screaming innuendo. The vitriol had leached into the American body politic and I could not avoid hearing the result everywhere as I drove around the Midwest or in Mississippi or along the border with Mexico. Conversations with folks of the conservative persuasion reflected the radio hosts’ ways of speaking.

By then I was working full-time as a radio journalist for NPR and understood the power of the medium. There is something intimate in the way radio reaches its audience. We speak in a controlled technical environment yet our voices, are absorbed in private spaces in the midst of quotidian activities: in kitchens while preparing dinner, in cars while driving to work or taking children to school. It is a one to one connection that doesn’t really exist in any other medium. The intimacy gives it power.

In the years immediately after the war, in the glow of victory, civil authorities understood this and tried to balance the necessary right to free speech with a civic obligation. It was not an onerous burden. What has happened since the Fairness Doctrine was removed shows it was a neccesary one.

This is the fourth and final chapter of part three of History of a Calamity, the story of how America went from Victory in World War 2 to Donald Trump and Cold Civil War in a single lifetime … Mine.

It is free to read but to keep going I need your help in two ways: please share it widely and also click on the donate button and make a contribution.

Donate

Share History of a Calamity

History of a Calamity

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: FAIR AND BALANCED

Part Three of History of a Calamity: It's a Hack's Life

Hello Americans, this is Paul Harvey, stand by for News!

Discussion about this post