SOCIETY DOWN: We overtake Fox!

MONDAY, JULY 15, 2013

Prelude—Nagourney’s selections: For us, a very large question emerged from the Zimmerman trial, as we saw the liberal world overtaking the world of Fox.

But first, consider two front-page treatments of that trial in today’s New York Times.

On that front page, Lizette Alvarez offers a “News Analysis” concerning the jury’s verdict. Midway through her report, a very rare moment occurs:
ALVAREZ (7/15/13): The murder charge required a showing that Mr. Zimmerman was full of ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent when he shot Mr. Martin. But prosecutors had little evidence to back up that claim, legal experts said. They could point only to Mr. Zimmerman’s words during his call to the police dispatcher the night he spotted Mr. Martin walking in the rain with his sweatshirt’s hood up and grew suspicious.

“Punks,” he said, adding a profanity. “They always get away,” he said, using another profanity.

But Mr. Zimmerman appeared calm during the call and did not describe Mr. Martin’s race until he was asked. And defense lawyers brought in witnesses to say that Mr. Zimmerman, on the whole, was a courteous, kind and caring neighbor.

“That was a fatal flaw right from the start in the case,” said Jeff Weiner, a well-known Miami criminal defense lawyer.
This being the New York Times, it isn’t entirely clear what Weiner meant by “that.” What was the alleged fatal flaw to which he alludes? The fact that Zimmerman, on the whole, had been a caring neighbor? Could that have been a fatal flaw right from the start in the case?

Whatever! We were struck by the highlighted passage, in which Alvarez did something extremely unusual. She explicitly included an optional fact which tends to weaken the preferred narrative concerning Zimmerman’s racial attitudes and motives.

It’s true! Zimmerman didn’t mention Martin’s race until he was asked to do so by the police dispatcher. From the tape of Zimmerman’s phone call, it isn’t clear that he was even sure of Martin’s race at the time he made the call.

(Similarly, Zimmerman didn’t mention Martin’s hoodie until he was asked to describe his clothing. Despite that, the hoodie became one of the two leading symbols of this case, along with the completely irrelevant package of Skittles.)

In our view, the optional fact which Alvarez cites isn’t super-significant. It isn’t clear that it tells us anything about Zimmerman’s attitudes at all.

That said, we’re making a point about Alvarez, not a point about Zimmerman. The point at which Zimmerman mentioned race doesn’t strike us as hugely probative. But it’s very rare to see a journalist cite an optional fact which tilts in Zimmerman’s favor.

In our view, Alvarez did a terrible job last Monday with her News Analysis piece about the role of race in this case. On the other hand, she has always seemed quite fair in her daily reporting.

Despite that, we were surprised to see the optional fact she included today. That fact tilts the story Zimmerman’s way. In the press corps, this just isn’t done!

By way of contrast, consider this morning’s front-page news report, written by Adam Nagourney.

From 2002 to 2010, Nagourney was the New York Times “chief political correspondent.” In many ways, he is a symbol of all that is hapless and tilted about his paper’s political reporting.

In 2010, Nagourney became the Times’ Los Angeles bureau chief. From that position, he writes the newspaper’s front-page news report, which focuses on reaction to the Zimmerman verdict.

Sitting in the upper right-hand corner, it’s the featured news report on today’s front page. Question:

Has Nagourney perhaps engaged in selective presentation of facts? Selective presentation designed to drive a preferred narrative?

Is Nagourney chasing a preferred story line? For one example, consider what he writes about the composition of the Zimmerman jury.

The all-female, six-member jury was selected on Thursday, June 20. From that day forward, the New York Times has always described its racial/ethnic composition the same way: “fives whites and one Hispanic.”

Until today! Today, on page one, in his fifth paragraph, Nagourney offers a new account of the jury’s composition. His account is technically accurate:
NAGOURNEY (7/15/13) Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer, had faced charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter—and the prospect of decades in jail, if convicted—stemming from his fatal shooting of Mr. Martin, 17, on the night of Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, a modest Central Florida city. Late Saturday, he was acquitted of all charges by the jurors, all of them women and none of them black, who had deliberated for more than 16 hours over two days.
That statement is technically accurate! Later, though, Nagourney quotes an aggrieved Richmond resident whose description of the jury is essentially false:
NAGOURNEY: The reactions to the verdict suggested that racial relations remained polarized in many parts of this country, particularly regarding the American justice system and the police.

“I pretty well knew that Mr. Zimmerman was going to be let free, because if justice was blind of colors, why wasn’t there any minorities on the jury?” said Willie Pettus, 57, of Richmond, Va.
No, it doesn't make a huge difference. But how does a major newspaper put such work like this into print?

We have now shown you the only accounts in today’s report concerning the jury’s racial/ethnic composition. In his own voice, Nagourney gives an account which is technically accurate but perhaps misleading. Shortly thereafter, he quotes an account which is simply inaccurate.

Nagourney's portrait of the jury helps advance the racial theme of his news report. On the down side, his portrait is false.

Presumably, every journalist understands a useful fact. Quoting a man-in-the-street who is misinformed is a wonderful way to insert a false fact into a news report.

Back in 1999, we showed you the way the Washington Times was doing that with respect to Candidate Gore’s deeply troubling canoe ride, a non-event which drove the paper’s front page for a full week.

This morning, Nagourney takes a similar route with respect to the Zimmerman jury, which had always been “five whites and one Hispanic.” Until today, when Nagourney composed a report stressing the allegedly racist nature of the trial and the verdict.

Consider a second passage from this news report. Again, Nagourney quotes a man-in-the-street.

When journalists quote such people, it all depends on who they select! Aside from Zimmerman’s lawyers and brother, only one person in Nagourney’s report challenges the notion that the verdict involved racism or racial bad faith.

Nagourney’s report spills with emotional charges of racism. But aside from Zimmerman’s lawyers and brother, this is the lone voice of dissent.

Yes, you're allowed to laugh:
NAGOURNEY: In Atlanta, Tommy Keith, 62, a white retired Cadillac salesman, rejected any contention that this was anything more than a failed murder case presented by the state. “The state’s got to prove their case, O.K.?” he said. “They didn’t. Stand Your Ground law is acceptable with me, and these protests are more racial than anything else. In my opinion, it’s not a racial thing.”
Too funny! Spanning the globe, Nagourney was able to locate one person who challenged the racial theme. That person was a 62-year-old white man in Atlanta—a retired Cadillac salesman, no less!

Nagourney’s selection of Keith is truly clownish. In truth, his news report would be more balanced if he had presented no voice of dissent.

The symbolism of this selection could hardly be more obvious. And yes, there were many voices who could have offered a respectful dissent to the claim that the trial and the jury’s verdict represents some form of racist conduct.

This could have included voices from the legal and political left. With respect to the question of Zimmerman's attitude, it could have included at least one voice from Martin's family itself.

Nagourney skipped those voices, as Alvarez did last week in her News Analysis piece about race. Instead, he went to Atlanta, where he found a retired white man.

On the whole, the New York Times has done terrible work about the killing of Martin and the Zimmerman trial. Nagourney’s report is just one minor example. At earlier junctures, the work in the Times has been much worse and much more consequential.

In part, we refer to the work the Times has published. We also refer to types of reporting the Times has failed to present.

Whatever! Today, we discuss a pair of reports from the front page of one newspaper. But uh-oh! Over the past sixteen months, the coverage of this high-profile case has raised a basic question about our nation’s most fundamental capabilities.

We refer to the work we've seen on cable and elsewhere in the mainstream press. We refer to the way we the people have often discussed this case.

But we especially refer to the work which has emerged from our nascent “liberal” press. Here is the question that clownistry raises:

As a people, do we really have what it takes to run a democracy?

Increasingly, the answer strikes us as a surprising but obvious no. Tomorrow, we’ll look at some of the borderline lunacy we saw yesterday on cable.

In truth, it's sobering and a bit disturbing—to see once again, after all these years, what we liberals are secretly like.

Tomorrow:We overtake Fox


  1. Mr. Somerby, when you offer valid criticisms of "liberal" journalism, do you mean to imply that news and opinion media like Breitbart or Fox or CNN or the Washington Times, or a David Brooks or Thomas Friedman or Joe Scarborough at "liberal" sources like the NYT and MSNBC, are doing a better job? You certainly have a lot of visitors to this site who seem to think so. (And the promise of "We overtake Fox" suggests they may be right.)

    1. It's just a load of TDH nonsense. Nagourney's article was on the reactions to the verdict. Was it wrong to quote various "man on the street" reactions? Not really, that's pretty standard procedure--the NYT doesn't have to conduct a rigorous poll to get the gist of people's reactions.
      So really, the only beef Somerby has with the NYT on this is that he didn't get to write the article. Just like he doesn't get to write Sirota's pieces or Kessler's... the list is nearly endless.

    2. The TDH beef with the NYT is plainly described -- it is that Nagourney selected his facts and sources to present a preconceived narrative that supported race as the driving factor behind both the death itself and the court's decision about it. That isn't good journalism.

    3. Nagourney = low-hanging fruit.

    4. Anon 1236,

      Nice try, but Nagourney's piece stayed focused on reactions to the verdict.

      Hilariously, TDH sprang into action after my comment to boohoohoo some more about Kessler's choice of topics...and threw in some more cherry-picking by whining about the hard-copy edition only.

      See the comments section on Bob's previous post:

      Read the commment by Glenn Kessler and see if you think TDH has addressed it.

    5. george zimmermanJuly 15, 2013 at 8:14 PM

      fairleft: "No."

      Because you can't.

  2. This comment will be deleted - but hopefully will be seen at least by a few people before that happens.

    This gentleman will be repeating the nitpick about "being told to stay in his car" for all eternity - because it lets him vent his spleen against "liberals".

    His hatred towards liberals who don't meet his standards is really something - why he doesn't openly declare allegiance with Drudge et al is beyond me.

    1. So it shows a bias against liberals to expect accurate reporting from the NYT?

      Especially within the context of a piece that is ABOUT media inaccuracies in the Zimmerman story?

    2. @Anon 12:12,

      It's not "nitpicking" to insist that journalists get basic, elementary facts right.

    3. There is no evidence Somersby even reads his comments. I have never seen a comment "deleted" from this site. For months we had to endure a bunch of website-promotion spam in comments.

      If you don't get what Somersby is saying and it seems like nitpicking to you, don't understand why he repeats himself, and think that all criticism of liberals is the same in content and motivation, this is probably not the place for you.

    4. I don't think it's a nitpick, because it's a way to blame Z. E.g., a WSJ analysis made the same mistake in a section that detailed the things Z presumably did wrong. Maybe Z did nothing at all wrong. Maybe M (and bad luck) were entirely to blame.

      We can't be sure, but a reasonable reading of the evidence could well conclude:

      -- Z was already out of the car when it was suggested that he stop following M
      -- At that point Z did stop following M
      -- Z correctly profiled M as possibly on drugs
      -- Z correctly profiled M as a bad person
      -- M started the altercation
      -- Z did nothing illegal or immoral to provoke M (Following him for a few minutes doesn't count!)
      -- Z never struck M
      -- Z had no other choice but to shoot M

    5. It becomes nitpicking when you focus on one commonly repeated error (a valuable service, but only up to a point) and then seem to assume that the entire argument of those who question Zimmerman's account(s) of events and his attorneys', or tend to believe more the prosecution's, depends entirely on that mistaken fact. And it becomes unbalanced when you do NOT cite errors or questionable narrative frameworks that inform non-"liberal" accounts (the kind that his comments section has become a home for). And it becomes wholly misleading when you fail to note at all many of the other issues raised by this case that the "liberal" media either have covered or should have covered.

      I read and watch many "liberal" sources (and that includes some of the coverage on MSNBC) and have many liberal-left acquaintances who think it reasonable that Z was acquitted, given the terms in which the law required them to render a verdict and given the facts that were established in court. There are plenty of important matters to discuss in relation to this case that these other sources and people address but that Bob S. doesn't care to. He'd rather nitpick. I am afraid he ends up looking like he cares more about establishing his own intellectual superiority to some straw man than about the challenges facing the children he used to teach once they become teenagers.

    6. I'd be better able to evaluate the strength of your charge if you'd give a commonly reported myth that so intragrally strengthened Zimmerman's claim of innocence.

    7. The myth that Z's version of events is to be trusted, implicitly. And that is the commonly reported myth on Fox and rightwing sites. You see it also in many comments at this site. (I am not referring to the jury's responsibility to demand proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I am referring to the assumption that there is no reason even to query Z's version of events.)

      Most of my comments on this subject, however, have focused elsewhere (as have most of the liberal commentary and news coverage I have read/heard/watched): the larger issues of Florida's SYG law (which wasn't invoked in trial but compromised the initial investigation of Martin's killing), of liberal concealed-carry laws, and of walking while black. Yes, that last issue is indeed raised by this whole incident. Even if one believes that it was not part of Z's thinking (and I make no claims to knowing, though there is some evidence to wonder), walking while black is a REAL danger. (Such an incident happened recently in my own small, mostly white New England town.)

      I understand how white people who lack racial animus may be tired of hearing about racism against blacks (and in many places, brown). But think for just one moment about how tired of it all blacks (and browns) are. How worried for their teenage sons black parents have to be, all the time.

    8. "The myth that Z's version of events is to be trusted, implicitly. You see it in many comments at this site."

      NO. No you don't. Not if you can read.

      Or don't be a bullshitter, for once, mch.

      For once, fairly quote someone. Quote, in fact, from "MANY" comments on this site. Quote them, showing that they trust implicitly Zimmerman's version of events.

      You're in outer space, friend. Here's not a quote, but an apt paraphrase, you may recognize from the world of film. It describes your contributions here to a T:

      "My god. It's full of bullshit."

  3. Bob,

    I listened to the local NPR talk show this morning ("The Roundtable" I believe, out of Albany NY). The commentary was ridiculous from a group of seemingly fairly liberal commentator/broadcasters.

    They repeatedly mentioned Skittles. One went so far as to compare this verdict to the assassination of Martin Luther King. They talked about the surprise of the media that there weren't more violent protests, as they expressed their own surprise that there weren't more protests. One panelist said the prosecution didn't present the evidence well enough to convince the jury...and then said that the way it looked to him (even though he hadn't really followed it closely), was a black kid out getting skittles is confronted and shot by a man with a gun, so somehow the verdict doesn't seem right. They kept mentioning "walking black," as if this particular case is a further example of racism and violence against black people.

    It seemed as if everyone was reading from the same script.


    1. Doesn't surprise me at all. Of course they want unrest.

      THAT they would report upon while keeping an eye on the monitor as they mentally likened themselves to Haynes Johnson.

    2. They want unrest? It's been conservative sites and people at Fox who have been priming the pump for race riots, Cecelia. The last things liberals want, especially while Obama is president, is civil unrest over race issues. Boy, are the anti-liberal tribalists out in force!

      And btw, while the NYT editorial staff tends to publish (mildly) liberal editorials, their op-ed page is not particularly liberal, and the only regular columnists who could accurately be called liberals are Krugman and (maybe) Kristof. The NYT's news pages are not notably liberal, either. Certainly not by NYC standards. As Bob S himself has noted, many of the Times' editorials depend on facts/points of view never or seldom reported on in their own news pages. Krugman gets his say on the op-ed page, but on the business pages most news stories and analysis rest on decidedly un-Krugmanesque approaches.

      You can tell how sheltered from real liberal thinking many of Bob S's commenters are by their notions of what "liberal thinking" is! But then, Bob S's notions of liberal thinking are a little weird. (For instance, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are about as centrist-right democratic as one can imagine, short of downright blue dogs. Neither has ever been known, among liberals, as a liberal democrat.)

      As for the Albany NPR station (which I know well): not particularly liberal but rather flabby Hudson Valley high pop culture, with a heavy dose of Alan Chartok's centrist, anti-intellectual resentments thrown in. For some serious liberal-left approaches (and better music), listen to Vermont's public radio or WFCR (five-college area of Pioneer Valley) or WBUR or WGBH (Boston). (If you can't pick them up by radio wave, they all live-stream.)

    3. I suppose it depends on your definition of "pimping".

      Frankly, when Nancy Grace several times states on the air that Zimmerman had said "fucking coons", and NPR talks about Martin being dead over crime of "walking black", I'd call that an attempt tp inflame.

      I hadn't given it a "liberal" label as you seem to have read in there. I suppose that it went without saying that no Fox journalist would wish to seem themselves as a journalistic icon of the Civil Rights Era.


    4. Cecelia, did you misread my "priming" for "pimping"? (Interesting slip of the eye, if you did.)

      And btw, your habit of "sheesh": such an ejaculation does not an argument make.

    5. I did misread it and must say that pimping more accurately conveys the idea of profiteering on the back of someone else, which is inherent in any attempt to inflame such passions.

      Actually, in response to your implication that it's only conservatives who are primping unrest because it wouldn't be in the interest of liberals, and that the NYT and people talking about "walking while black" at an Albany NPR station aren't 'very' liberal...and the assumption that I just meant the liberal media to start with, deserved a sheesh.

      It certainly doesn't deserved to be characterized as anything but silly assertions and assumptions. Certainly not an argument.

  4. Who benefits from promoting a narrative of racial divisiveness? In the 70's when I worked as a community organizer in Chicago, the Mayor's office used to tell us that the resources we were seeking were already being consumed by another minority group, pitting one ethnicity against another. We finally addressed this tactic by forming a coalition and approaching the city as one. In our mainstream culture today, what do vested interests gain by pitting black against white and Hispanic, immigrant against non-immigrant and vice versa? What does our preoccupation with racism prevent us from doing as a united people? I find myself wondering whether this is all intended to keep people occupied with extraneous matters while no one asks why wealth is concentrated in so few hands and the majority (of all races and ethnicities) have such a hard time making ends meet. Does marching to eliminate a specious "racism" prevent us from asking for economic fairness and finding common cause based on economic needs? If so, what does it mean that left socialist and Marxist groups are so visibly marching against racism in this case?

    1. Who benefits?

      Barack Obama and other Dems benefit. The furor over Z's supposed assassination of M helped get out the black vote. In 2012, for the first time ever, black voter turnout % exceeded white voter turnout %.

      Radical groups continue to benefit, because it gives them a rallying cause. It was radical groups that led the demonstrations here in Oakland, which turned slightly violent. For them and for the Dems, an acquittal was better than a conviction, because it gives these groups a continuing cause.

      Media benefit, because they get more viewers.

      Race-hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton benefit, because they make a lot of money from this sort of thing.

      The Martin family hoped to benefit via lawsuits against the community that made Z a Watch captain.

      Some liberals benefit, because fighting racism (whether or not it's real) makes them feel virtuous.

    2. Conservatives benefit, because the bread and circuses keep so many from realizing that the rich are choking the middle class.

    3. Although I am appalled and sickened by the blog author's relentless defence of Z - let me bring out something that would never be said openly by anybody - this wouldn't have happened to an African immigrant or a South Asian "darker than the Ace of Spades".

      Native born, inner-city young American blacks (boys and girls) have a threatening "physical attitude". It pains me that black parents don't breed this macho readiness for violence out of their children. Until they do - inner city blacks will be perceived as the feral "other" - even by genteel native-born American blacks (didn't Jesse Jackson himself say “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”).

      In all likelihood, T.M. presented a feral aspect to non-blacks, perhaps to blacks also.

      Z has a right not to be confronted by feral human beings - all well and good.

      BUT HOWEVER- if this were a car accident TM was "rear ended". At the beginning - all the following was done by Z and TM enters the picture being aware of being followed. A right that even feral young black men have - THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE - was violated by the creepy coward Z - knowing fully well that a macho boy like TM would only rely on his fists in a confrontation while the coward bastard had his equalizer.

      100 percent of the blame for this confrontation rests with Z. It doesn't matter if the pursued became pursuer over the course of the event - IT ALL HAPPENED BECAUSE Z DID NOT GIVE TM THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE.

      its as simple as that folks.

    4. Wow. Anon 1:59: somewhere between "feral young black man" TM and "creepy coward Z" you've managed to craft one of the strangest comments I've seen here in some time - and that's saying a lot!

    5. Anon 12:22: Brilliant comment. It's obvious who benefits, and that would be the owners of the media and the rest of the rich, and of course their bought-and-paid-for political parties. The system benefits, and its goal is every dollar possible for the wealthiest and as few as possible for the rest of us. Income inequality pushes ever upward, and that middle-class country you learned about in the school books and that you still see on your sitcoms ... is not the USA you see around you anymore. If you look.

  5. Well, I'm sure feral black people count themselves lucky to have such a champion for individual rights in their corner.

  6. The most important thing is NEVER the facts, those "stupid things," but who might find support from those facts.

    If there are vile racists somewhere (and there most surely are), then any facts which might please those vile racists are surely best suppressed.

    Right, Greg?
    Right, mch?
    Right til?
    Correct, Confused???

    1. Nobody suggested that exposing inaccuracies is a problem. The problem lies is the contextualization of those inaccuracies. Shouldn't be too hard an argument to grasp. You can disagree with how to contextualize, but I would love to hear how context for "facts" doesn't matter.

  7. Who benefits from drawing attention to questions about race? For starters, how about, one hopes in the long run, the people who directly suffer from the effects of racism in this country?

    Mr. Somerby, I truly do no believe you intend for the tacks you take to provide fodder for people who would like to pretend that racial prejudice, particularly against African-Americans, is no longer a serious problem in this country. Why is it that your posts, especially on Z/M, attract so many people like that? Something to ponder.

    1. I kinda tend to think that Somerby merely disagreed with an attempt by the media to convict a man on the basis of inaccuracies.

      How that effected racists and their opponents was of no concern.

    2. Read the comments on Mr S's posts, Cecelia. Many have been pretty shocking. Others (I count my own among them) have tried to point out to Mr. S why his posts have prompted some of these commenters.

      Also, Mr. S's posts do not fairly characterize the totality of liberal coverage, I believe. Did those who do not believe Z's account base their conclusions decisively on the inaccuracies Mr S obsesses about? Not in my reading of various liberal sites or in conversation with liberals. Mr. S has constructed a straw man here, and in the process he has attracted a very virulent kind of commenter.

      You and I can appreciate Mr. S from our different perspectives, but Mr. S is not god.

    3. Also, TDH likes to hide behind the curtain of calling this a media blog: how did the NY Times and MSNBC force the President to remark that “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin” way back in March, 2012? Did the President mean that they share a similar lanky build or close cropped haircuts or did the President indicate that he thought race was the most important aspect of this case?
      Which media outlet made Obama do that? Does the President talk about a lot of domestic criminal cases or just this one? Should the NY Times and MSNBC cover what the President indicates are the most important issues of the day?
      And it's not just the President, elected officials around the country are commenting on what they see as important racial aspects of the case. Is this all triggered by MSNBC coverage? Does the "liberal media" have that kind of power?

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Actually, mch, it's your strawman.

      Somerby has quoted inaccuracies from the most prominent media outlets in the country, and your answer is that he's being unfair because not every outlet has been inaccurate.

      Double sheesh...

  8. mch poor poor mch, disappointed by the "shocking" tone of some of the posts here, what a bullshit artist you are!

    Who was it then who posted this one:

    "As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?""

    Probably the most shocking bullshit characterization to appear in these threads, supplied, OF COURSE, by the "shocked" mch.

    Oh why can't the rest of us live up to your high standards?

  9. Because some of you (not "the rest" -- I have more faith in humanity than that) are too lazy and too self-satisfied. My standards aren't particularly high. They're really no different from Henry James' in (one of?) his last letters to a friend: "Be kind. Be kind. Be kind." I am so so tired of the vitriol. Is there so little sympathy, feeling among Mr. S's commenters?

    I am not poor poor. Which is why I care about those who are.... You might try it.

    1. In other words, mch has no substantive response to the evidence that she, not others, has contributed "shocking" arguments and hypocrisy to this thread.

      Who would've guessed???

      [Clue horn, mch: Implying that your interlocutors are lazy or that they, unlike lovely you, don't care about the poor, is no evidence of your own humane generosity. Quite the opposite. You are a condescending asshole. Your dripping condescension, however, is not hurtful, but rather hilarious, as despite your continuous high-falutin' name-dropping it is despairingly clear you've got nothing going on upstairs.]


  10. it is a most useful website for airport site service.some time we are visit for many website about find our traveling airport if we were visit this website we will get our goal very shortly.
    Specifically, when the width of the shuttle is set and the values in the shuttle are relatively long, they simply get cut off. I am hoping there is a way to show a horizontal scrollbar at the bottom of each list in an APEX shuttle.if you want get this service please visit here.