Part 4—World of bad faith, amen: In many ways, the Mastro report is low-grade, low-IQ work.
It does seem to present some new information concerning Team Christie’s pursuit of an endorsement from Fort Lee’s Mayor Sokolich.
But concerning that topic and others, it reaches conclusions which can’t be reached. It marshals its evidence foolishly at times.
In short, the Mastro report strongly resembles much of our modern “journalism.” Consider what happened when Rachel Maddow angrily proved that the Mastro report was built on an act of “slut shaming.”
The report was released last Thursday morning. That night, Maddow opened her “cable news” program with a 23-minute harangue about the report. This was followed by a nine-minute interview with Heather Haddon, the Wall Street Journal’s Christie reporter.
Between those segments, Maddow offered a two-minute segment about a public statement by Bill Stepien, one of the four Christie staffers cut loose on January 8.
In fairness, it’s dangerous to discuss a lengthy report on the same day it’s released. With apologies for the length of the excerpt, a cable news star can end up doing this:
MADDOW (3/27/14): While the governor’s office is touting this report as a comprehensive and exhaustive look at the scandal, what was probably the biggest surprise today when they finally released it was that they actually published no new documentation about the scandal at all. I mean, we knew he hadn’t—that the lawyers hadn’t spoken with Bridget Kelly, they hadn’t spoken with David Wildstein, they hadn’t spoken with Bill Stepien, hadn`t spoken with a lot of people right at the center of the scandal. But they do brag about having reviewed a quarter of a quarter of a million documents, doing more than 70 interviews, including with the governor himself.According to Maddow, the biggest surprise was probably this: when Team Mastro finally released the report, “they actually published no new documentation about the scandal at all.”
But they released—and this was a surprise—they released no transcripts from those interviews. In fact, no substantial direct quotes from those interviews. They released none of the documentation they said they looked at. They release none of these text messages, none of the e-mails they said they saw, no documents of any kind.
They just published this one long narrative today with unrelenting glowing, gauzy characterizations of Governor Christie’s strength and leadership and character throughout this difficult time.
The governor demanded straight answers from his senior staff. The governor welling up with tears, expressing shock at the revelations. They actually say, in the executive summary of the report, “Governor Christie’s account of these events rings true. He has conducted himself at every turn as someone who has nothing to hide.”
You know, if they had been slightly less over the top, it would have been easier to stomach this. But apparently they could not contain themselves and had to sprinkle everything with glitter and smiley faces.
Still though, even without releasing any supporting documentation at all, even with the laugh-out-loud, over the top exhortations of Chris Christie’s innocence and indeed his greatness, even with all of that, there is within all of that some new information that this report is offering. After all, they got to interview people who otherwise have never spoken publicly and at length about this matter.
And we haven’t seen the interviews. They didn’t release the transcripts or even long quotes, but we know at least what Chris Christie’s lawyers say is the factual record based on the interviews that they say they conducted. And from their report, we learn a handful of new and interesting details.
They don’t say that all these things are important, but these are things we never knew before. And some of them seem important to me.
“They released none of the documentation they looked at. They released none of these text messages, none of the emails they said they saw, no documents of any kind.”
Maddow berated this weirdness at some length. As Governor Perry said, “Oops.”
In fact, the Mastro report was accompanied by the release of more than 4000 pages of related materials, including all sorts of emails, text messages and documents.
On Monday night, Maddow acknowledged her error, briefly and in passing (full text below). She said “the report and the exhibits supporting the report went out separately that morning.”
Maddow eschewed her kitschy DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS format. She uses that to correct her minor mistakes, and to propagandize viewers about her unparalleled honesty, which may not exactly exist.
Instead, she briefly acknowledged this larger mistake, then discussed a selection of the exhibits she first said didn’t exist.
In fairness, anyone could have made that mistake. (Others might not have turned it into an indictment to the extent Maddow did.) We were struck by an earlier, more aggressive representation by Maddow last Thursday night—a representation which led to her charge that the Mastro report involved an act of “slut shaming.”
In her opening segment last Thursday, Maddow stressed the fact that the Mastro report mentions a personal relationship between Bridget Kelly and Bill Stepien.
To Maddow, this constituted “slut shaming.” In our view, that judgment is massively over the top, though your results may differ.
With apologies for the length of this excerpt we’ll post, we were struck by the possible dishonesty of Maddow’s presentation.
In the passage shown below, Maddow attacks the way the Mastro report treats the relationship between Kelly and Stepien.
She says the report “keeps bringing it up over and over and over again.” She says the report gives no explanation for its inclusion in the report.
She says the report “blames the bridge scandal, without explanation, on the fact that this lady in the office was having a tough time in her love life.” She says the Mastro report “blames the whole thing on her.”
The lawyers “decided to explain away the bridge matter with this hard evidence that they have turned up about Bridget Kelly’s personal life,” Maddow thrillingly says.
Warning! Selective editing, slick misdirection and flat-out misstatements follow:
MADDOW (3/27/14): [The Mastro lawyers] have decided to explain away the bridge matter with this hard evidence that they have turned up about Bridget Kelly’s personal life.To watch the full segment, click this.
They brought up this matter of her personal life at the press conference announcing the report, and they reference it repeatedly throughout this million-dollar document. Look, quote:
“At some point after Bill Stepien’s departure to run the Chris Christie re-election campaign, Bridget Kelly and Bill Stepien became personally involved, although by early August 2013, their personal relationship had cooled, apparently at Mr. Stepien’s choice.”
Then a little later on in the report, quote: "Evidence in Kelly’s personal life may have had some bearing on her subjective motivations. Her first known communication to David Wildstein about the lane closures occurred around the time that her relationship with Bill Stepien had cooled, apparently at Bill Stepien’s behest, and Stepien and Kelly had largely stopped speaking. Indeed, that fact may have affected how Kelly and Stepien conducted themselves.”
Why is it relevant if these people were or were not having a relationship and how it was going? The relevance of this is never explained. It’s just supposed to be self-evident, I guess, and they keep bringing it up over and over and over again. Look, here it is again on page 17:
“Given that Stepien’s personal relationship apparently cooled by, Stepien and Kelly’s personal relationship apparently cooled by early August 2013”—
I mean, essentially they’re going throughout this report over and over again. Did we mention that he dumped her?
What possible relevance does that have to the issue of whether or not the Chris Christie administration abused its power by using the busiest bridge in the world as a weapon to attack a small town as some sort of act of political retaliation? Why on earth would Bridget Kelly’s personal life and how her love life was going and whether or not Bill Stepien dumped her be relevant to that political question?
I mean, maybe if she had explained that that was her state of mind and she’d had an emotional breakdown and therefore had done something at work that was totally out of keeping with anything else she’d ever done in her job and anything else the Christie administration had ever done or expected, because she explained that she was so upset about a break—I mean, did she explain that? Did she say that in a deposition or something? Is that why this is in a report three times and was also brought up gratuitously at the press conference?
No. In fact, Bridget Kelly never spoke to the lawyers who did this investigation. The people doing this investigation didn’t speak to her, and they also didn’t speak to the other person who they say she was having a relationship with.
So what they’ve printed throughout the report is gossip about what they heard about their relationship and how it was going. They just gratuitously bring that up as they blame the whole thing on her.
In real life, this is called slut shaming. I’m not sure what they call it in New Jersey politics but it’s amazing to see it in this report that New Jersey taxpayers have paid for—$1 million in public money spent to produce this report which blames the bridge scandal, without explanation, on the fact that this lady in the office was having a tough time in her love life.
Amazing.
Should that personal relationship have been mentioned at all? That is a matter of judgment.
In our view, there’s nothing wrong with a personal relationship until shamers of various types decide to step in and start yelling. But that’s a whole different discussion.
You can judge the Mastro report as you like on this matter. Let’s discuss what happens in Maddow’s presentation:
Maddow asserts that the Mastro report “keeps bringing this topic up over and over and over again.” “They reference it repeatedly throughout this million-dollar document,” she says.
She then quotes three different references to this matter—three references which seem to occur just by page 17!
In fact, those are the only three references to this topic in the 340-page report. At one point, Maddow mentions this very quickly, in passing, thereby creating the patina of technical accuracy.
Those are the only references to this topic in the report. And just so you’ll know, these are the actual pages on which those three quoted passages occur:
Pages where the quoted passages actually appear:That second passage does not occur “a little later on in the report.” It occurs a full 111 pages after the first passage Maddow quoted.
Page 3, in the executive summary
Page 114, in the findings of fact concerning Kelly
Page 117, in the findings of fact concerning Stepien
Most importantly, the third passage Maddow quoted does not occur on page 17. It occurs on page 117. She was off by a hundred pages!
(There’s no doubt that Maddow said “page 17.” The statement occurs at the 6-minute mark of the tape.)
Was that an innocent error by Maddow? We have no way of knowing. That said, she gave the rather clear impression that the topic in question is cited three times in just the first 17 pages of the report.
In fact, it’s cited three times in all, spread over a lengthy expanse. To search the report, click here.
Perhaps that was just a mistake! But look at the way Maddow edited her third quotation from the report, helping drive the inaccurate claim that no explanation is ever given for mentioning the personal relationship:
WHAT MADDOW SAID: Why is it relevant if these people were or were not having a relationship and how it was going? The relevance of this is never explained. It’s just supposed to be self-evident, I guess, and they keep bringing it up over and over and over again. Look, here it is again on page 17.By happenstance, Maddow stops quoting that passage right at the point where the “possible relevance” is stated! Having edited thusly, she proceeded to tear her hair, asking the gods “what possible relevance” the topic in question could have.
“Given that Stepien’s personal relationship apparently cooled by, Stepien and Kelly’s personal relationship apparently cooled by early August 2013”—
I mean, essentially they’re going throughout this report over and over again. Did we mention that he dumped her?
What possible relevance does that have to the issue of whether or not the Chris Christie administration abused its power by using the busiest bridge in the world as a weapon to attack a small town as some sort of act of political retaliation?
THE MASTRO REPORT (page 117): Given that Stepien’s personal relationship with Kelly had apparently cooled by early August 2013, that turn of events may have affected the extent and content of their communications throughout the relevant time period. Stepien, Wildstein, and Baroni enjoyed a longstanding friendship, dating back to their work together on the 2000 Franks campaign for U.S. Senate. And Stepien also managed Baroni’s successful 2003 campaign for State Assembly. These personal relationships may account for the apparent familiarity reflected in these communications.
In fact, the Mastro report says the relationship is mentioned because it might explain the lack of communication between Kelly and Stepien, the person who held her position as deputy chief of staff before she took over in April 2013. On page 114, the report also offers this rationale (our emphasis):
“Like the others involved in the lane realignment, events in Kelly’s personal life may have had some bearing on her subjective motivations and state of mind...”
The report goes on to offer examples. Maddow quotes part of that longer passage (see above), but only after dropping the part of the statement which says that “the others involved in the lane realignment” may have been affected by personal matters too.
(In Thursday evening’s second segment, Maddow kept pouring it on. “There’s no purported explanation for the repeated references in this report to Bridget Kelly and Bill Stepien having a relationship,” she inaccurately said. “It is an inexplicable but repeated and emphatic assertion made in this report.”)
Why did the Mastro report mention the personal relationship? We can’t answer that question.
In our view, its explanations of that matter are sometimes fuzzy and childish, like many of its attempts at analysis.
It could be that this topic was included to provide embarrassment to Kelly and/or Stepien, and for no other reason. We have no way of knowing.
We can speculate about the reason for this topic’s inclusion. But we can state the following as a fact: Maddow’s presentation was riddled with plain misstatements. Those misstatements tilted her presentation in a heavily partisan direction:
She gave a highly misleading picture of the emphasis placed on this topic—a misleading picture which was driven by a flat misstatement (“page 17”).
She complained, again and again, that the report gives no explanation for why this topic is mentioned. Plainly, that statement was false. She supported her claim by disappearing the explanations which are in fact included.
She kept saying the Mastro report blames the whole thing on Kelly (fuller passage below). Plainly, that is absurdly false, or his name isn’t David Wildstein.
And yes, the Mastro report did include all kinds of documents—4000 pages worth. On Monday night, Maddow acknowledged her earlier error, then began citing some documents.
Uh-oh! Right in her first selection, the star continued to err:
MADDOW (3/31/14): If you have got a case of brand new highlighters, and several boxes of binder clips, this report from the Chris Christie lawyers is, in fact, fascinating reading. It is filled with documents that we haven’t seen before.“I’m sorry to tarnish the office?” Whatever Kelly may have meant, she’d probably like to get that one back.
Last week, I mistakenly said that attorney Randy Mastro, the guy who did this report, didn’t include the raw e-mails or raw text messages when he published the results of his investigation. That was wrong on my part.
The report and the exhibits supporting the report went out separately that morning. And in fact, in the exhibits, there’s the raw stuff, as you can see.
This is, for example, the raw text message in which the Christie deputy chief of staff who ordered traffic problems for the town of Fort Lee, this is the text message in which she apologizes to her staffer. Bridget Kelly apologizing right after she has been fired. She writes, “I’m sorry to tarnish the office.”
Her staffer replies, “We did amazing things to be proud of for four years. Never forget that.” Then she says, “Hang in there, B.K.” Raw stuff.
But no one had to dig through the raw stuff in the exhibits to see that raw text message from Kelly. That message appears on page 9 of the Mastro report itself. It was sitting there the whole time.
That’s a minor point. But has Maddow read the Mastro report? It seems fairly clear that Chris Matthews hasn’t. But then, what else is new?
Indeed, all around the upper-end press, we find major journalists who don’t seem to have read the report. In some cases, they almost seem to be conning their viewers in various ways, as they’ve almost seemed to do a great many times in the past.
Frequently, the Mastro report is embarrassing in the IQ department. Maddow’s work last Thursday night may have been even worse.
But that’s the nature of our post-journalistic world, a world in which we get our “news” from multimillionaire corporate hacks who just don’t seem obsessively honest despite their claims to moral greatness.
How dumb was Maddow last Thursday night? Early on, she piddled us this:
MADDOW (3/27/14): The bridge issue, the shutting down of access lanes on to the George Washington Bridge, you’ll be happy to know that that issue has also been completely put to bed as a scandal. In this case, not only has Governor Christie, himself, been completely exonerated, in fact, he comes out looking better than he ever has really at any other point in his political career. He’s like some sort of amazing combination of the hero and the bereft victim here, in a way that at times is very moving. Turns out he cried a lot during this process, if you read this report.By now, she was really jumping the snark. A few tidbits are even correct. But no:
But his law firm, the law firm that he hired, and that New Jersey taxpayers paid for, they have also divined the real explanation for what happened on the George Washington Bridge. It turns out the governor’s law firm in this million-dollar report paid for by New Jersey taxpayers has decided to blame what happened on that bridge all on this lady, and the report speculates openly and repeatedly throughout the report, and they said out loud today in the press conference announcing the report, that maybe the whole thing happened because of her love life, because of problems in her love life.
You know how women are. Boy crazy? That`s why it happened. You know how it is.
In the report, the shutting down of the access lanes has not “been completely put to bed as a scandal.” The report did not “decide to blame what happened on that bridge all on this lady.” And manifestly, it didn’t repeatedly say, throughout the report, “that maybe the whole thing happened because of her love life, because of problems in her love life.”
Maddow was really bringing the snark! As she did, was she stuffing big sacks of cash in her pants, while her viewers got big piles of crap?
The Mastro report was frequently dumb. Can we say that “the press” wasn’t worse?
Coming: We pity the guests of Chris Matthews
"we were struck by the possible dishonesty of Maddow’s presentation."
ReplyDelete"Possible" dishonesty? Gawd, Somerby you're a weasel.
Don't you have the guts to say what you mean and mean what you say? Or are you afraid you won't be able to wiggle out of it once you called out?
But at least you finally got to the nut of your issues, as always:
"As she did, was she stuffing big sacks of cash in her pants, while her viewers got big piles of crap?"
It just galls you that since you launched this blog, Maddow has earned a doctorate, had her own radio show, and landed a TV gig that pays her seven figures, while you, a "pioneer" in political blogging are still stuck at home typing up random thoughts like 1998.
And it must give you heartburn that late bloomers like Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas have built their fledgling blogs into actual money-making news sites as you fight your personal and vindictive War on Maddow on the world's 724,484th ranked blog, having dropped some 68,000 spots since your ludicrous coverage of Fort Lee began three months ago.
source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/dailyhowler.blogspot.com
But don't fret, Bob. There were lots of ersatz "journalists" in 1998 who thought personal blogging would be their easy path to fame and fortune.
Unfortunately, they forgot to tell you that it would take hard work to do it well. Like, for instance, staying on top of things and not taking a full week to comment.
And of course, having something original and worthwhile to say when you say it
Face it Bob. The Daily Howler is no longer about truth, honesty, or even Rachel Maddow's work on the Mastro Report.
It's about your insane fixation on her pants, and your irrational hatred of various human beings that you have not and will likely never meet in person.
It has gotten to the point where Maddow could say that Mars is round, and you'd berate her for never having gone there to make sure, while accusing her of fooling the rubes while stuffing large sums of money in her pants.
Maddow trolls defending their employer, right on cue.
DeleteDo you think anyone would really fixate on her pants instead of the money being stuffed there?
DeleteBlogger trolls defending their Hairless Leader, right on cue. Like 1:25, I really don't have anything to say about this post, so I'll whine about trolls instead.
DeleteI'm seriously beginning to believe that Rachel Maddow herself is writing many of these angry posts.
DeleteMaddobots love 1%ers who spout the "right" ideology. Such rubes.
DeleteI admit now that I was wrong you were right about what was said earlier.
DeleteWhy not, majneb? A person stupid enough to seriously believe Somerby is certainly stupid enough that Maddow would even visit this pissant of a blog.
DeleteLet no one interrupt you or your hero in your delusions of self-importance.
When you fact check Somerby, his claims hold up. With Maddow, not so much. With trolls, the claims about Somerby's deceit always hinge on sophistry. They assume readers will not put in the effort to check out what they say.
DeleteSomerby's essays on Rachel Maddow are obsessively focused and pointed. I have not yet seen anyone else with the integrity and the will to parse Maddow's nightly performances.
DeleteAnd hey, I LIKE Rachel; I always have. But I like hard-working and honest journalists as well. And to my mind, Somerby often trumps Rachel just often enough to keep him interesting in my view.
Wow. After a week of slut shaming BOB gives us slut shaming of weak work over a week old. And it's so windy we might need a while
ReplyDeleteto wander through it.
KZ
KZ
Perhaps you should take a full week. After all, Somerby has warned us how "dangerous" it is to report the news on the day it happens.
DeleteToo bad he didn't follow his own advice when he first called the report an "oversold dud." He is now forced to spend an entire week praising its merits and defending its accuracy while still proclaming: "In many ways, the Mastro report is low-grade, low-IQ work."
You clearly don't know what the term "slut shaming" means. An example of why use of a serious topic like sexism to advance other agendas harms the cause of people who actually oppose sexism -- rather than using it for trolling or to advance partisan goals.
Delete" ... rather than using it for trolling ...ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
Delete1:28 is
DeleteAn example of why use of serious blog commentary box space and precious Internet bandwidth to defend the intergrity of terminology useable in multiple contexts harms the cause of people who actually write complete sentences --rather than using it for phrases or to demonstrate the need for English composition practice.
I agree with KZ. With lucidity and rationality, he has illuminated the flaws in stupid blogger’s ridiculous assertions that progressive ideals are not being served by their champions in the media. What a dumb thought in the first place but I commend KZ for articulating so well why this wrong. KZ has once again proved why he is the Dimebag Darrell of TDH commenters.
DeleteKZ is the only one who agrees with KZ around here.
DeleteOne thing I have always liked about John Stewart is that he reads the books written by the people he interviews. It shows in his questions and his ability to carry on an intelligent discussion about the book contents.
ReplyDeleteIf it were Maddow's staff writing partisan, inaccurate scripts for her to read during her show or giving her factually inaccurate briefings before airtime, would she know that they were doing it? Not without reading the report herself.
When Somerby complains that too much modern journalism is being done by recent graduates of Ivy league colleges, who presumably got their jobs through their family connections, it does tie in to Maddow's performance. If she similarly relies on that type of staff, young people with little experience of how to parse complex situations, handle data, and make sense out of documents, that would account for the general sloppiness, without also ascribing malice or political motives.
Rounding off the corners is what people do when they don't have time to get it right. Maddow must rush to press with whatever is in hand, because that is journalistic tradition, whether she knows what she's reading, has thought through what to say, or has any command of the facts herself. The remaining question is why she is being paid so much money to do that sloppy kind of job. Is it because she comes across as credible and thus can "sell" the mistakes better than someone else? Is it because she is entertaining, no matter what she says, and people don't really care about the content of her show? Is it because she delivers a sense of outrage (rightly or wrongly based) that people enjoy feeling? If so, is that really journalism and is it good for our democracy when liberals are fed pseudo-information that they believe to be true? I don't think so.
If ... If ... If ...
DeleteYou have no idea, so let your imagination run wild in order to accuse her of the worst possible sins of journalism your fevered mind can conjure.
You've learned well from the Master, grasshopper.
The alternative is that she did this sloppy work herself. Do you prefer that explanation?
DeleteOr . . . another alternative could be that just because Somerby calls it sloppy, that doesn;t mean it was sloppy.
DeleteBut if you really hunger for sloppy work on Fort Lee, go visit the Incomparable Archives.
Pay particular attention how this is all just "ginned up" for partisan purposes, then later on, closely note the date when Our Hero was still floating the possibility that this was all some innocent little traffic study, just bungled.
Anon 1:24
DeleteOne thing I like about John Stewart is his ability to convince dumb people in his audience he is smarter than they are without having to be, even though he probably is. It shows in the compliments such people give him.
If I called your comment idiotic, but Somerby wrote, "did Anon @ 2:2? call Anon @ 1:24 and idiot? On balance we'd say no," would you give it serious thought why Somerby might be right. Or would you catch my drifts?
When Somerby notes someone went to and got a degree from an Ivy League college do you assume those that he does not so identify were not well connected or perhaps did poorly on the old, tougher SAT which may not really have been so tough and who knows what it really measures? Or do you make a mental note than sending out a lot of resumes means squat and squadoosh if Daddy can't pick up the phone and land you a plum position? I don't think so. Which is why I asked all these questions when I already planned to state the answer.
Oh, and 1:28 really didn't call you an insect. But if push comes to shove I come down on the side of Christie calling Kelly stupid no matter how badly Somerby slices Dylan quotes.
1:24, she gets paid that kind of money because she brings in lots of viewers to watch commercials. Is the concept of television new to you?
DeleteNews used to be subsidized by networks as a public good. When that subsidy went away, so did the good reporting. Maddow is dishonest when she pretends to be reporting but serves up entertainment instead. It is fair to call her on that, as Somerby has been doing.
DeleteIt is ridiculous that the crime here seems to be pointing out Maddow's mistakes, not the mistakes themselves. She is a crappy journalist. Why is that so hard to admit?
ReplyDeleteYou are entitled to any opinion Somerby has instructed you to hold on Rachel Maddow.
DeleteWhy is it so hard for you to admit that other people might hold a different opinion?
What makes you think Maddow has anything to do with most of the comments.
DeletePerhaps it has to do with the blogger.
Some expressed an opinion that Bob's choice of Seahunt
for an analogy was sexist. Others just said it meant he was old. Real old. Like black and white TV old.
Troll gibberish -- this comment makes no sense at all, but has the typical angry tone aimed at Somerby.
DeleteNote how Bob highlights, "Like the others involved in the lane realignment . . ."
ReplyDeleteWell, Bob. The Report says there is ONE "other" involved -- Wildstein.
Can you point to the passage in the report where his love life and personal issues are discussed?
His love life apparently wasn't affecting his job performance. When people aren't speaking it has an impact on the chain of communication which is relevant to this situation.
DeleteSo Baroni was still taking his calls and the faceless bureaucrats down at the bridge figured he still had all the power he always had when he first slept his way to the top?
DeleteChain of communication? Between the deputy chief of staff and the campaign manager? About shutting down lanes and creating traffic problems?
DeleteExactly what were they not communicating about, despite the e-mails that show they WERE communicating.
2:45, the report never actually alleges that Kelly's love life was affecting her job performance. The report merely mentions her love life over and over and over again and hopefully lets you draw your own conclusions -- which you did.
DeleteShe got kicked to the curb, it happens. What she did was reckless, irresponsible, and yes I'll say it, stupid.
Delete"over and over and over again "
DeleteOnce in the Executive summary, once in the section about Kelly and once in the section about Stepien (who was the other party in the relationship).
But it sounds like so many more times, the way you phrase it: "over and over and over again."
No one doubts she got caught red handed. I'll venture that it's likely during the interview process both sides agreed that the two were no longer on speaking terms after he dumped her. At that point I'm sure he very much wanted it known that all communication between the two was indeed retrievable so he could not be implicated by way of her sordid behavior. It may have been emphasized to the small degree it was in the report to protect an innocent individual from false pillow talk rumors. Based on her actions she has to be as crazy as an outhouse rat.
DeleteThis is such a low-rated blog. Why to the Maddobots waste their time on it?
ReplyDeleteQuite true. This blog is no longer even pimple on the ass of respected commentary.
DeleteSo perhaps "Maddobots" aren't wasting time on it. It could be ordinary people who think Somerby is a pompous blowhard whose full of shit.
Imagine that.
"So perhaps 'Maddobots' aren't wasting time on it. It could be ordinary people who think Somerby is a pompous blowhard whose full of shit."
DeleteDoubt it. The viciousness and intensity of the blowback, especially on posts critical of darling Rachel, suggest either die-hard Maddites, or possibly even the Queen Bee (or her staff) herself.
2:30, I'll tell you why a waste me time here. I used to enjoy this blog, as I have always sought out good quality media criticism. But then Bob slowly descended into this strange, off-target obsession with Maddow and a few others. Personally, the worst thing I find about Maddow is something that is worser even with Bob: repetitive verbosity.
DeleteOf course it suggests that to you. The use of sarcastic epithets like "darling" and "Queen Bee" suggests you are a total BobBot, or Bob himself. But then again who are you, and why should anyone care about your diagnosis? Yes, of course the same goes for me.
DeleteGive an example, dear majneb, of a vicious, intense bit of blowback you think might have been written by the Queen
DeleteBee of her staff.
"I used to enjoy this blog..." ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
DeleteDon't put up with these mindless put downs, my brother prehuman doorgs!
DeleteAre we men or are we Maddites? Or are we Maddobots?
Hell, all this name calling gets a troll confused. And that loot is locked tight in the bitch's britches, I'll tell ya. It's hard out here on the pennies that piddle pimp pays.
"Give an example, dear majneb, of a vicious, intense bit of blowback ..."
DeleteGiven the comments to today's post alone I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm.
Of course even the irony aware can never be too certain these days ...
Deletemajneb: good to know that twats like you are above it all.
Delete"majneb: good to know that twats like you are above it all."
DeleteDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:
At 3:34 PM we noted the vicious and intense nature of many of the comments.
We regret the error.
majneb, are you really, truly that stupid that you could actually believe that Rachel Maddow even knows about the existence of a blog that doesn't get 1,000 unique hits a day, or, if she heard about once a long time ago, that she cares?
DeleteOh yeah. I forgot. You're a Bob fan. Of course you're that stupid. You also believe your hero is doing important work here.
Too vicious for you? Go back and read the archives. You'll find a lot of vicious, hate-filled language regardless of the topic.
What Bob fans really can't wrap their lizard brains around is the sad fact that the "trolls" are merely handing back exactly what Bob, the self-proclaimed defender of discourse, is serving, and in exactly the same tone he has set.
Someone obviously cares. Enough to waste a lot of time trolling this site. The larger the behavior, the stronger the motive.
DeleteIn point of fact majneb seems only to show up at TDH for the Maddow posts to troll the "trolls." Who at FOX is paying
Deletemajneb?
Not much substance from the critics, basically all insults. The same venom I'm sure Ms. Kelly felt coursing through her veins when she gave hard working commuters traveling the busiest bridge on the planet a great big middle finger. Doing her part to run government like some corporate prick.
DeleteYes indeed, "Who at FOX is paying
Deletemajneb?"
I'm truly stunned that no one has guessed by now.
Hint: starts with a "Gret" ..................
and ends with an "an Susteren."
The Maddotonians are here to right a wrong
DeleteThe Bobbleheads are here to divert attention from the mistakes and venom used by their favorite blogger in his continued fault finding that seems to center on the female of the species, regardless of whtether her name is Rachel, Gale, Kate, Maureen, Amanda, or Motoko.
DeleteOr Christopher or Lawrence or sometimes even Kevin.
DeleteMSNBC Alert: Blogoshperic Personnel Update
ReplyDeleteTroll Payment Directive 404114
The following shows will no longer pay trolls for successful commentary box commentary on blogs which cover broadcasts over a week after the original show aired.
TRMS, HB with CM, Up, The Last Word
This is a supplement to Payment Directive 121313 which indicated blogs ranking below 500,000 may only be covered by interns admitted to the Troll Academy through social promotion.
Troll Trainees in Slut Studies may submit successfully placed commentary for extra credit consideration regardless of the ranking of the blog provided its author is below the age of the average FOX news viewer.
Excuse me, but after Alex Wagner's checks bounced, I went to work for Chris Hayes.
DeleteIs he still paying for commentary on blogs that cover week-old broadcasts?
Chris Hayes will still pay, but only in Bitcoin for work related to his hosting the weekend show.
DeleteMaddow said there wasn't any new information, than later said she was wrong.
ReplyDeleteBob screamed this controversy was "ginned up", still waiting for him to say he was wrong.
Give him some gin and he might admit it.
DeleteOr that this really wasn't a traffic study gone wrong.
DeleteOr, for that matter, that Gov. Ultrasound has been indicted.
Anon @ 3:00 pm.
DeleteWe know anyone can be indicted.
Except not all the mayors of Newark dating back to '64 when Bob was a teen lad reeling at the news of Kitty Geneovese's Almost-and-Actual murder by someone who never pretended to be a pseudo-liberal career killer.
And a ham sandwhich. That zombie fact is often used to diminish indictments, as in "A good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich." If anyone asked us if a ham sandwhich has ever been indicted, we'd have to say, "no."' It is possible. Anything is. But a good prosecutor has never done it. We did a nexis search.
KZ
Not possible to defend today's set of Maddow errors so you have to go back to accusing Somerby of white-washing Christie in the first days of the scandal? Feeble. Feeeeeble.
Delete7:57 demonstrates the feeble minded nature of tribe Bob. They love Bob so much they think criticism of Bob has to emanate from people angered because of who he attacks rather than the errors he himself commits while doing it.
DeleteNo need to defend Maddow. She's not the one posting around here.
For this to be true there must be errors he has committed.
DeleteYes. There must. There are. We are just getting started.
DeleteSee our comment below.
KZ (In as much time as Bob has had, we think we'll spot some more.)
Just because you claim something is an error doesn't mean you are right.
DeleteIf one attaches any morality or ethics to sex, and given its consequence anyone with a modicum of either should, then so-called "slut shaming" is a positive social practice. A double standard for slut shaming is not good, but equal opportunity slut shaming is.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't anyone with a modicum of ethics automatically have a modicum of morality and vice versa?
DeleteDid anyone call Kelly a slut? We'd have to say no.
DeleteThese lies Maddow told have been travelling around the globe for a week. Bob Somerby is a national treasure for promptly calling a halt to it.
ReplyDeleteWell put, Bob.
DeleteIs this satire? We can't tell.
DeleteAgreed. Once again, my irony meter has failed me.
DeleteUnplug it, give it 7 days. Boot it back up then see if either Christie's approval ratings have changed. Then you will see the difference a week of Bob makes.
DeleteWhen the focus of a blog is on how the media cover events, rather than the events themselves, the element of timeliness has little to do with anything. Whole books are written about how the press covered presidential elections, for example, and they tend to be better with some distance from the events.
DeleteMaddow thinks she must say something immediately, whether she knows what to say or not, whether she is prepared or not, whether there are any available facts or not. She just goes right ahead and does her empty, flawed or ginned up segments, on schedule because that is the most important thing about the noise she makes -- that it be timely. This similarity of priorities may be on reason why some people think Maddow is doing her own trolling.
Couldn't agree with you more about the books angle:
Delete"Whole books are written about how the press covered presidential elections, for example, and they tend to be better with some distance from the events."
Sometimes they are even better when they are finished.
An excellent read in any format. Liberals should know that history, they're likely fools if they don't.
DeleteOMB (Homage to Rick Perry)
ReplyDelete"As Governor Perry said, “Oops.”
BOB begins his dissection of Maddow's presentation with a long discussion of her error in saying Mastro & Co. did not release any support documents along with their report. He includes, for our review, a lengthy excerpt from her transcipt so we can see the error in her own words. Then he adds his own stellar analysis:
BOB:
"Maddow berated this weirdness at some length. As Governor Perry said, “Oops.”
In fact, the Mastro report was accompanied by the release of more than 4000 pages of related materials....
On Monday night, Maddow acknowledged her error.....
Maddow eschewed her kitschy DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS format......
Instead, she briefly acknowledged this larger mistake, then discussed a selection of the exhibits she first said didn’t exist."
We have read the excerpt now a few times. Can we talk? What BOB said about what Rachel said? You know, about "exhibits she first said didn't exist"?
That doesn't seem to exist.
BOB berated Rachel's error at some length. We won't dwell on his. As Governor Perry said, “Oops.”
KZ
(The Z is not for Zernike, but we might take to calling BOB "Zomerby" from now on as motivation to the OTB to not repeat the same kind of mistakes of invention made by The Worst Reporter In The World)
This isn't any kind of error. It is a description by Somerby of what happened on Maddow's show. He thinks her subsequent remarks are worse than overlooking the attachments was, and says so.
DeleteFor the cranium-anal displaced, Maddow never said the documents "didn't exist." She said they weren't released. Yes, she was wrong about that, she admitted it, and she examined those documents.
DeleteAnd Somerby of course picks on the nit of her earlier mistake which in the mind of Somerby apparently disqualifies her forever from looking at those documents.
The bulk of his post is about her subsequent errors.
DeleteThe bulk of this post reads like the bulk of every other post Somerby has written about Maddow.
DeleteThat doesn't speak very well for Maddow.
DeleteYou are all wasting your time.
DeleteWhoever came up with the "constantly weeping" quote, or anyone who passed it along should not call themselves a journalist
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 1:01 The person who came up with the "constantly weeping" in quotation marks is you.
DeleteDon't call yourself a journalist. That was a stupid act. I can't believe anyone who comments here would tell that lie.
Did I call you stupid? Did I say you were a liar. On balance, no. Can we talk?
From Zernicke's article (3/28/14):
Delete"But the report commissioned by Mr. Christie and released Thursday doubles down on a strategy of portraying Ms. Kelly as duplicitous, weeping frequently and dependent on men for approval and stability."
Note the words weeping frequently. If you are quibbling over the word constantly vs frequently, you are a dishonest person or an idiot or both.
Will you ever learn how to spell Zernike?
Delete"If you are quibbling over the word constantly vs frequently"
DeleteYou said : "Whoever came up with the "constantly weeping" quote, or anyone who passed it along should not call themselves a journalist."
I said: The person who came up with the "constantly weeping" in quotation marks is you.
I quibble not. I just pointed out a fact. You "seemed" to imply dissatisfaction with whoever might do such a thing.
You did.
You quoted Zernike. She did not quote anyone in the words you attribute to her. Nor did she say weeping constantly.
Bob has written more than one post about people who put quotations marks around things that were not said.
Ever careful with the facts, Bob pointed out clearly that two-thirds of the "340 page report" was either footnotes or discussions of the Dawn Zimmer matter. He also remarked honestly on how strange it was to see the jilted lover story with no apparent connection to the facts of this matter stated prominently halfway through page 3 of the frickin' Executive Summary.
ReplyDeleteNow we see an outstanding example of the word "innuendo." The story serves exactly zero other purpose.
He also didn't point out that polar bears are never mentioned in the entire 340 page report and he didn't state that no one ever says what Kelly had for breakfast on the day of the lane realignment.
DeleteThe "jilted lover story" is referred to as a "personal relationship" in the report -- note the overheated language here. The reason for mentioning it IS discussed and is stated as a possible explanation for why Kelly did not communicate with Stepien. It would be expected she might have because she is acting in his former job. Because the purpose of the report is to examine possible connections back to Christie, her failure to communicate with the head of Christie's campaign does bear upon whether Christie may have ordered the lane closures. Examining the evidence about whether anyone connected to Christie may have instructed or encouraged her to close the lanes was both relevant and important to the investigation. So the absence of communication between Kelly and Christie's campaign is pertinent, as is an explanation for why expected communication might not have occurred.
We still don't know why the lane closures happened, but your inability to consider why communications between Kelly and Stepien may have mattered to the investigation appear purposeful -- to support the accusation that this report's goal was to target Kelly and not to investigate what happened. That is a partisan purpose.
Except of course, they WERE communicating. One must ask why, if this was a scheme solely cooked up by Wildstein and Kelly, were they looping Stepien into the e-mails.
Delete11:12 you might have had a valid first point if you started with urban legend's word choice rather than utter nonsense.
DeleteYou go to great lengths to justify the repeated mention of the relationship between Stepien and Kelly. Your effort borders on absurd.
Neither Stepien and Kelly have not turned over personal documents or testified. Mastro and his team had access to neither, so they have no factual basis to state what level of communication went on between the two, much less speculate on the cause of something they cannot possible know. That you do not see this immediately, nor does Somerby, indicates the both of you have little qualification to critique a puppet show, much less an invesitgative report or opinion talk show.
KZ
Pardon the double negative. Our editors waved that into print.
DeleteKZ
Butt out KZ
DeleteAnon @12:13 says:
Delete"if this was a scheme solely cooked up by Wildstein and Kelly,"
Starting with that assumption does raise certain questions, but keeping an open mind about what may or may not have happened leads to different questions.
Ah, 2:06. But we already butted in. And unless you attempt to refute the substance of the comment, we will assume you are merely irked that you have been corrected.
DeleteKZ
Of course "scheme solely cooked up by Wildstein and Kelly" is not an assumption made here, but the conclusion reached by Mastro & Co.
DeleteOne can always speculate about what assumptions they worked under to reach that conclusion.
Good to know about the without facts.
ReplyDeleteTDH's post meticulously shows the bad faith on Maddow's (or her scriptwriters') part. He demonstrates the Hannity style approach adopted by Maddow. TDH keeps churning this stuff out, and if you're bored there surely must be a lot of other things you can read in your search for edification. But as much as TDH keeps addressing the way the "Bridgegate" story is being treated, generally making valid points, every post is followed by a series a brainless, obnoxious insults. There are an indeterminable number of anons (2 or 3?, 6 or 7? more, less? - I agree it is silly to speculate that Maddow is one of the anons) led by KZ, who frankly is a nut, although as some have observed, nuts can be hilarious. Look at all these posts, filled with obnoxious venom, yet not one has pointed out how TDH is in the least mistaken in the criticism of Maddow contained in the post. (for example, one anon asserting that the post should be discredited because TDH is jealous of Maddow; aside from being completely speculative, doesn't address anything that is actually said in the post, apparently because what is said in the post itself is unimpeachable.
ReplyDeleteAnd I just love it when Bob fans rush to the combox to explain the brilliance of Bob. One more reason to keep coming back.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:41, zero from you explaining how anything I said was invalid. Instead, I am a "Bobfan" which you seem to think is extremely uncool, without explaining why. By pointing out that his post was well taken, I am thereby claiming that THD is "brilliant."
DeleteAnd not only that, my commenting here means that I have "rushed" to comment, when, masochistically I suppose, I have been reading these moronic "Bob hater" comments for days on end without rushing to declare TDH's brilliance. There's often plenty to criticize or dispute with what apears in TDH's posts, though the above post I thought was good, and as I pointed out, none of the above crew of his commentators, in all their obnoxious taunts, has bothered to point out anything to the contrary.
There were about 80+ comments already by the time AC/MA appeared. That is hardly "rushing".
DeleteAc/MA you wrote this morning..."not one has pointed out how TDH is in the least mistaken in the criticism of Maddow contained in the post."
DeleteWe are in the process of our second offering on that very score, the first having been posted last night. Perhaps you missed it? It is just above this one. You could have made an honest mistake.
It seems TDH, in his effort to show Maddow made a mistake (and it was a very large one) himself invented something she did not say. We hinted at the time it was the same kind of mistake which prompted multiple posts from BOB attacking Kate Zernike. You could have just overlooked our comment. Many do. But you did repeat the claim in a second comment, the one to which we now respond.
Now that you have been corrected we await your response. Was yours an honest mistake? We don't want to fault you for what seems to be tilting your comments in a partisan direction.
KZ
KZ, I appreciate your polite reply. (I could have been polite myself by not calling you a "nut" albeit a hilarious one). When you say you had pointed out that TDH had attributed to Maddow something she did not say, are you referring to your 1:21 comment? I reread the whole (real long) TDH post and your 1:21 comment and am still unable to detect how TDH misrepresented what Maddow said. This might be due to my being dense or missing your point entrely. Could you point out the specific misrepresentation of what Maddow said in TDH's post? If you are correct about something, which I admit has been the case from time to time (if only it were more often!) I would gladly acknowledge same.
DeleteI do note that you seem to recognize that at least over all TDH is on the mark about Maddow's Hannityesque (my word) style, at least on the segment of her show he is discussing.
I sound partisan? And you don't? I would add that I don't like Christie at all, would never vote for him, though there are a lot of Republicans as bad or worse
Ac/MA Thanks for replying. We should have been more explicit than simply referring to our comment from "last night." We were not referencing the brief opener from yesterday afternoon at 1:21PM. Rather the one at 9:34PM.
DeleteKZ
OMB (Homage to Rick Perry)
ReplyDeletePart 2: If at First You Don't Secede, Fry Em Over and Over Again
BOB might like to secede from the broken inellectual culture which he decries but remarkably resembles. But in this post, he, like the infotainer he attacks, is still a lost cause.
We already showed how, in deploring a Maddow error, he invented something she said in the manner he claims Kate Zernike invents them. In this comment we will show more of the master at work.
After the document error, BOB turns his attention to Maddow's discussion ot the Kelly-Stepien "relationship." The number three is important here.
Three is the number of times BOB suggests Maddow is less than honest in her representation of this issue or in general.
"we were struck by the possible dishonesty of Maddow’s presentation"
"She gave a highly misleading picture of the emphasis placed on this topic"
"multimillionaire corporate hacks who just don’t seem obsessively honest"
Three is also the number of times BOB repeats the fact that Maddow says the relationship is mentioned "over and over and over again" in the Mastro report.
Three is the number of times the relationship IS mentioned in the Mastro report.
Now go back to BOB's statement that "She gave a highly misleading picture of the emphasis placed on this topic." Bob give this some misleading emphasis as well by restating it again and again.
"In fact, those are the only three references to this topic in the 340-page report."
"Those are the only references to this topic in the report."
Of course we edited a bit in presenting the two quotes above. Lets see them in context as BOB wrote them:
"In fact, those are the only three references to this topic in the 340-page report. At one point, Maddow mentions this very quickly, in passing, thereby creating the patina of technical accuracy.
Those are the only references to this topic in the report."
MY GOD CAN WE TALK?????? Maddow says accurately how many times the topic is discussed in the report. BOB has reprinted her own words doing so. Yet to dismiss it he says she does it "quickly in passing." She is not being truthful, she merely "maintains the patina of technical accuracy."
She did get a page number wrong. She said Page 17 instead of Page 117 as the location of an otherwise accurate direct quotefrom the report. That allows BOB to say this to besmirch this wicked propagandist's "patina of technical accuracy":
"Was that an innocent error by Maddow? We have no way of knowing. That said, she gave the rather clear impression that the topic in question is cited three times in just the first 17 pages of the report."
In fact he used it even earlier to state: "She then quotes three different references to this matter—three references which seem to occur just by page 17!"
BOB used a mistake in quoting a page number to drive much of his claim that she was misleading viewers. Or "seeming" to do so.
Later, if we are up to it, we'll deal with the malarkey thrown to the rubes about the reasons for including this "relationship" in the report.
BOB is even less than honest in dealing with this issue. Suffice it to say he puts words in Maddows mouth and leaves out things she said while accusing her of doing the same.
But by know he has posted anew, and is citing this post as proof of the failures of Maddow in his call for her firing. BOB doesn't want lots of people in prison like he claims our cable hucketers do. He just wants you to know if there were anybody as smart and honest as he is in charge, lots of people would be fired.
KZ
KZ, your comment is worthless. Was Maddow' being "Hannityesque?" If Maddoxw literally did acknowledge (though it's not clear that she did) at some point that there were only"three" references, so what? The way she presented was dishonest and slimy, as demonstrated by TDH's post. Your whole schtick, albeit hilarious to some, is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteAC/MA, the way BOB presented his analysis is Maddowesque. If you find Maddow to be like Hannity, fine. Unfortunately we find the crux of your comment to be in a vein similar to BOB's. At least, to your credit, you are more candid.
DeleteHere is the simple problem we have with you. You wrote this:
"If Maddoxw literally did acknowledge (though it's not clear that she did) at some point that there were only"three" references, so what?"
Truth is unimportant, you seem to say. And parenthetically she might still might not be telling the truth.
The problem is BOB put the true thing she said into his post above this comment and even put in a sentence about it himself written in a way which dismisses it. You stuff your dismissal into a parenthetical remark than denies its existence.
For your continued edification we reprint her truth on this matter.
"Is that why this is in a report three times and was also brought up gratuitously at the press conference?"
Of course BOB never mentions the part about Mastro and the press conference. It doesn't fit his meme.
We, do, however, appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts on our views of the matter, even if we disagree.
KZ
KZ. you are an utter sophist, either purposefully disingenuous or as I (impolitely) suggested earlier, a nut (albeit a hilarious one to some), There is simply no rational explanation why any sane person would do what you do. Aren't there any worse blogs that you could haunt than this one?
DeleteOMB (Homage to Rick Perry)
ReplyDeletePart 3: From "Wow! to Oops"
In Part 1 we discussed how BOB, after documenting a mistake of Rachel the Pants Stuffer, stuffed words she never spoke into his post. We believe "major misstatement" would be the way BOB would describe such his error if commited by clown or coward in our "press corps."
In Part 2 we noted BOB downplayed truth to assemble a lengthy allegation of dishonesty regarding the wicked witch hunter of collapsing Western civilization.
Here we examine BOB's allegation that Maddow's mistakenly left out information which would have shone the light from her big orange shoes on the reasons Mastro & Co. included the references to the relationship between Kelly and Stepien in the report.
Let's go back to the beginning of this phase in BOB's almost four month crusade to cleanse the culture of propaganda. Let's start with BOB's preview of the upcoming report:
"Wow! Will this review include real information about the “motivations leading up to the closing of the lanes?” wrote BOB in hopes the report would shed new light on this "ginned up" nothing of a story that had become anything but his original dismissive description.
Even BOB noted "Wow" turned to DUD when the report was released. So what WAS there that WAS new and addressed the motive question of WHY the lanes were coned for Ft. Lee were coned off. The only thing new was that Stepien and Kelly, the two directly on Christie's payrolls, were once having an undefined "personal relationship.
Literally there was nothing else new about Ft. Lee for anyone in the press corps to cover. So cover it they did. And there was nothing else in the coverage for BOB to criticize. So criticize he did.
BOB's third stated objection to Maddow's method of covering that relationship (pagination and number of references being the first two) is why this relationship is mentioned in the first place.
"She complained, again and again, that the report gives no explanation for why this topic is mentioned. Plainly, that statement was false. She supported her claim by disappearing the explanations which are in fact included."
Once again BOB is putting things Maddow did not say into her mouth. What Maddow said was that the report gives no explanation of why this matter is relevant to why the actions at the bridge were taken.
Maddow is attacked by BOB for shortening one quote from the report which explains for the third time that the changed nature of the Stepien-Kelly relationship might have effected their communications. But she had already quoted one section of the report which contained that very assertion. Does BOB really think she needed to mention this speculation about the impact the termination of this undefined relationship had on communications three times?
How does BOB himself describe the rationale for including this "relationship in the report?
"Why did the Mastro report mention the personal relationship? We can’t answer that question. In our view, its explanations of that matter are sometimes fuzzy and childish, like many of its attempts at analysis." said BOB in two paragraphs.
So Rachel quotes the fuzzy childish explanation once, notes it does not address the relevance to the bridge actions several times, and BOB
says she disappears the childish fuzziness then says the same thing again and agin.
We will say what Rachel said again as well. How is this relationship and its termination relevant to the motivation of Kelly and Wildstein and the actions taken as a result of that motivation? The report does not explain that.
"Wow" we might get to motive. "DUD" we didn't. But we'll mislead you to support our meme to save civilization from collapse.
KZ
ReplyDeleteشركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة سمر جدة
ReplyDeleteشركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة سمر جدة
شركة دلة جدة
ReplyDeleteشركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة