It seems liberals all across the media and political spectrum have been organizing their message for what looks like quite some time now. They've got a virtual hide out called JournoList, a secret club complete with a "No Conservatives Allowed!" sign plastered on the front door, where they discuss all kinds of liberal issues and push the daily talking points. From the Politico:
For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?
Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. "Basically," he says, "it's just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely."
[...]
POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn't respond to interview requests -- and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn't be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.
In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList's off-the-record rule "makes it seems secretive." But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to "ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions."
One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership -- which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias -- JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.
You don't say. I'm so shocked.
Mark Hemingway at The Corner responds:
I've been hearing rumblings about this for a while, and I'm glad Politico finally did a story on it. Basically, "mainstream" journalists from The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Politico and many others chat all day on a list-serv with liberal activists and journalists.[...]
Further, one of the most valuable currencies in Washington is access to the press. The article notes that many stories have started on or been shaped by JournoList. If you're a liberal blogger or activist, you can now push your story on the highest echelons of journalism with a quick email. If you're a mainstream journalist, is it really ethical that you don't give the opposing view equal access?
I think the real answer here is simply that there are no conservatives on the list because this just confirms -- yet again -- that mainstream journalists are privately hostile to conservative ideas and are somewhat committed to advancing liberal ones.
Update: Mark Hemingway explains why JournoList is a problem:
If explicitly liberal bloggers, activists and policy wonks want to get together several times a week and burn black candles and perform obscure magick rituals to converse with FDR from beyond the grave, that's fine with me. But when supposedly objective journalists or, worse yet, people such as Peter Orzag who until recently was the head of the Congressional Budget Office, participate in their shennanigans and at the very least fail to disclose it, then I have a problem.I would like to think that journalists whose credibility rests on working for publications that represent themselves as objective news outlets as well as very influential civil-service employees would see the problem in granting exclusive access to people with a specific political agenda. Even the appearance that the news, let alone actual policies that affect all Americans, are being shaped disproportionately by reporters and unelected civil servants in the thrall of ideological crusaders is a problem.



Comments (45)
Not shocking at all. Progr... (Below threshold)1. Posted by GarandFan | March 17, 2009 12:15 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Not shocking at all. Progressives have been accusing conservatives of having such a 'group think tank' for years. Another of those "if we're doing it, they must be doing it'.
The logic is flawless.
1. Posted by GarandFan | March 17, 2009 12:15 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:15
2. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 17, 2009 12:36 PM | Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy? Part Infinity
2. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 17, 2009 12:36 PM |
Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:36
3. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 12:46 PM | Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
ZOMG, a listserv! That journalists use! The horror!
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your tin foil will be confiscated.
3. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 12:46 PM |
Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:46
4. Posted by hyperbolist | March 17, 2009 12:47 PM | Score: -9 (13 votes cast)
If I were a conservative, I'd be annoyed that the braintrust of movement conservativism is demonstrably too stupid to organize something like this. Brit Hume doesn't know how to use a webcam? Is David Broder above speaking to mere bloggers? Fred Hiatt too stupid to take a conference call?
Oh, right, somebody did try: how's Pajamas Media working out for Mr. Simon? Wingnut welfare all dried up yet?
4. Posted by hyperbolist | March 17, 2009 12:47 PM |
Score: -9 (13 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:47
5. Posted by HA HA | March 17, 2009 12:51 PM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
So much for the independent leftist. Group think and marching orders is the only acceptable discourse allowed by the so called "progressives" - propoganda, it's what the lefts eats for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
5. Posted by HA HA | March 17, 2009 12:51 PM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:51
6. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 17, 2009 12:53 PM | Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
What else EXCEPT the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy could explain the silence on Obama's Fake Birth Certificate?
6. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 17, 2009 12:53 PM |
Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:53
7. Posted by Blue Neponset
| March 17, 2009 12:54 PM | Score: -7 (13 votes cast)
A conservative friend of mine swears he sees black helicopters hovering over his local National Guard Armory every time the Space Shuttle is launched do you think this is related to your conspiracy?
7. Posted by Blue Neponset
| March 17, 2009 12:54 PM |
Score: -7 (13 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:54
8. Posted by Peach | March 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
So lets see...they have a morning conference calls and then secret website chat rooms to coordinate the 'message". So called objective journalists spitball thier talking points or GET their talking points from their secret internet friends...and this is the same group who had a problem with Nixon?
HA HA , propaganda isn't the meal plan, hypocrisy is the progressive breakfast, lunch and dinner.
What a bunch of phonies and fraudsters.
depp=true
notiz=A sock puppet that answers its own posts
8. Posted by Peach | March 17, 2009 12:56 PM |
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:56
9. Posted by Michael Laprarie | March 17, 2009 12:59 PM | Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Man, the trolls are out in force this morning. Yipes.
9. Posted by Michael Laprarie | March 17, 2009 12:59 PM |
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 12:59
10. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 17, 2009 1:03 PM | Score: -7 (13 votes cast)
Where is the secret aspect of this conspiracy?
10. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 17, 2009 1:03 PM |
Score: -7 (13 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:03
11. Posted by Falze | March 17, 2009 1:08 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
No kidding, Michael...maybe it struck a nerve finding out that, after decades of denials, influential members of the press really do discuss talking points beforehand and appear to coordinate efforts, even if only unintentionally via reinforcing each others opinions.
Even if it wasn't set up as any sort of intentional coordinating site (and it seems unlikely it was), what it IS doing is acting like a left-wing media echo chamber where you end up with people that can claim with a straight face "how did he get elected? I don't know anyone that voted for him!"
11. Posted by Falze | March 17, 2009 1:08 PM |
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:08
12. Posted by LeftisLame | March 17, 2009 1:08 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
The trolls are out because this is precisely the kind of transparency hypocrisy they like to pretend their side is not engaged in and are against -- turns out their over lords need to agree on the narrative in private.
12. Posted by LeftisLame | March 17, 2009 1:08 PM |
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:08
13. Posted by The Other Ed | March 17, 2009 1:19 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Now isn't this what the so-called Twitter revolution is supposed to be doing for conservatives? Exchanging ideas on a realtime basis?
I think this is a little overhyped, like most Politico stories tend to be. It's just another mailing list that chooses it's own membership.
13. Posted by The Other Ed | March 17, 2009 1:19 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:19
14. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 1:19 PM | Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
Where is the secret aspect of this conspiracy?
No secret, Adrian. Just more verification of something you lefties deny - the media is liberal, and they echo liberal talking points. BTW, there's a card check thread on Page 1 today. Sure you don't want to weigh in?
14. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 1:19 PM |
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:19
15. Posted by TOhio | March 17, 2009 1:20 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
This is all the more reason why we shouldn't be purchasing any liberal publications.
No conservative should be buying Newsweek, Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post and any other publication with a liberal bent.
Let's starve them financially.
15. Posted by TOhio | March 17, 2009 1:20 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:20
16. Posted by Hank | March 17, 2009 1:25 PM | Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
"One byproduct of that secrecy: ....JList itself has received almost no attention from the media."
Gee, ya think?
You think these liberal morons are going to publicize the fact that they need to check with JList every day to know what to think, say and write?
16. Posted by Hank | March 17, 2009 1:25 PM |
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:25
17. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 1:30 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Gee, ya think?
You think these liberal morons are going to publicize the fact that they need to check with JList every day to know what to think, say and write?
Hank, maybe they can't write about JList because JList hasn't told them to write about JList. Now you have wondering - who exactly is writing President Teleprompter's scripts, anyway?
17. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 1:30 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:30
18. Posted by Jay Guevara | March 17, 2009 1:36 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
I guess somebody had to step up once Moscow stopped coordinating left-wing politics.
18. Posted by Jay Guevara | March 17, 2009 1:36 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:36
19. Posted by 914 | March 17, 2009 1:37 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
The teleprompter in chief has done pretty well considering He was born outside of this Country.
19. Posted by 914 | March 17, 2009 1:37 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:37
20. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 1:38 PM | Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
Lots of people belong to profession-specific listservs, and members often have to agree to not to reprint others' comments elsewhere. I belong to one myself. Must be a conspiracy.
20. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 1:38 PM |
Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:38
21. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 1:58 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
TOhio -
Re Newsweek and Time - I gave up on them when they hit the $4/issue level and their 'news' started hiding amid the advertising. Occasional glances at recent issues leads me to think you get more substantive reporting and analysis from 'People' and the 'National Enquirer'.
21. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 1:58 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 13:58
22. Posted by hyperbolist | March 17, 2009 2:43 PM | Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
If you don't agree with Rush Limbaugh, and you're a reporter, then you're part of the liberal media. [/f*ckwit]
David Broder, Fred Hiatt, Lou Dobbs, William Kristol (formerly of the NY Times), Brit Hume, Peggy Noonan, Judith Miller, Sean Hannity--these are not members of the mainstream media? Are you that remarkably stupid?
All the crybabies that didn't like being snubbed by Obama at the Gridiron Dinner? Not liberals. At least, not liberal activists. Just because they live in big cities and went to good schools, doesn't make them dirty f*cking hippies or Red agitators. They're the establishment, which Obama clearly has less use for than Bush did during the first few years of his presidency when he used the op-ed pages of the major broadsheets to pimp his Iraqi adventure.
This blog is devolving into The Onion.com, minus the funny gift shop and stellar A/V section.
22. Posted by hyperbolist | March 17, 2009 2:43 PM |
Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 14:43
23. Posted by maggie | March 17, 2009 2:49 PM | Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
hyperbolist,
Since Wizbang is devolving and causing you such
distaste, why don't you post elsewhere on your
compamy time.
23. Posted by maggie | March 17, 2009 2:49 PM |
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 14:49
24. Posted by GarandFan | March 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"Lots of people belong to profession-specific listservs, and members often have to agree to not to reprint others' comments elsewhere. I belong to one myself. Must be a conspiracy."
Only when your group-think espouses itself to be "the voice of the people".
24. Posted by GarandFan | March 17, 2009 3:03 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 15:03
25. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 3:25 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
But not everyone belongs to a listserv where they get the meme of the day and run it as "news".
25. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 3:25 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 15:25
26. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 3:34 PM | Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
You guys really are conspiracy theorist whackjobs, aren't you? If there was a "meme of the day," that the media borg collective followed, wouldn't they just get it from the evil emm-ess-emm overlord starship, The New York Times? Why would they need a listserv? And hasn't the evil liberal media been evil and liberal for a long time, way before this list existed? How did they coordinate their evil socialist agenda all this time, without a super secret unified message dissemination listserv?
26. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 3:34 PM |
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 15:34
27. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 4:18 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Mantis -
I recall Hillary claiming there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' - when there was pretty much no evidence of one other that the fact that people weren't falling into line and passing her policies without question.
I thought it was over the top at the time.
Now there's something like this - and for all your protestations that the listserv is harmless, when you couple that with something like this group con-call, there does come a point where you associate the preparation of multiple people with the actions (and words) of a few.
27. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 4:18 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 16:18
28. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 4:22 PM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
And I've always thought you one of the more reasonable of the non-conservatives here at Wizbang, by the way. It strikes me odd you'd go nearly full-blown 'Lee Ward' in your 3:34 post.
28. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 4:22 PM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 16:22
29. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 4:27 PM | Score: -3 (9 votes cast)
Now there's something like this - and for all your protestations that the listserv is harmless, when you couple that with something like this group con-call, there does come a point where you associate the preparation of multiple people with the actions (and words) of a few.
I understand how the brains of conspiracy theorists work, thank you. People in the media use email! Liberal political action groups use phones! It's a giant conspiracy to march us all to socialist doom!
And I've always thought you one of the more reasonable of the non-conservatives here at Wizbang, by the way. It strikes me odd you'd go nearly full-blown 'Lee Ward' in your 3:34 post.
Well, with a topic this incredibly stupid, I don't know how else to respond other than to point out how ridiculous the logic behind it is. I use the same tone when dealing with troothers, birthers, and moon landing conspiracists.
29. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 4:27 PM |
Score: -3 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 16:27
30. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 5:33 PM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Mantis -
The problem is that, unlike the troofers, birthers, and MLC folks - this is much more plauible and convincing. Get influential groups together to decide what the issue of the day is going to be, and you get a slant in the news coverage, no matter how you try to paint it.
Honestly, I don't think getting left-wing bloggers, policy wonks and academics together and talking with political reporters and magazine writers on a daily basis is going to produce unbiased output. If you've got bad astigmatism and can't see straight in the first place, it's hard to draw a straight line without outside aid.
30. Posted by JLawson | March 17, 2009 5:33 PM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 17:33
31. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 5:51 PM | Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
The problem is that, unlike the troofers, birthers, and MLC folks - this is much more plauible and convincing.
Yes, very convincing. I'm swept away.
Get influential groups together to decide what the issue of the day is going to be, and you get a slant in the news coverage, no matter how you try to paint it.
Tell me how partisan political groups coordinating is new or remarkable in any way. Of course they want to slant news coverage. So do conservative groups! That's the game, fella.
Honestly, I don't think getting left-wing bloggers, policy wonks and academics together and talking with political reporters and magazine writers on a daily basis is going to produce unbiased output.
Well, that's not what the Politico article said. It said there was a listserv those people use to have discussions with their fellow professionals. Not that they get together, not that they do anything on a daily basis, just that they have a listserv for discussion. So what?
31. Posted by mantis | March 17, 2009 5:51 PM |
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 17:51
32. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 6:30 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Tell me how partisan political groups coordinating is new or remarkable in any way. Of course they want to slant news coverage. So do conservative groups! That's the game, fella.
Mantis, the problem is that journalists are part of the partisan political group here.
Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?
Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. "Basically," he says, "it's just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely."
32. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2009 6:30 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 18:30
33. Posted by jason | March 17, 2009 6:34 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
And we're supposed to trust the MSM?
http://www.rightklik.net/
33. Posted by jason | March 17, 2009 6:34 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 18:34
34. Posted by James Cloninger | March 17, 2009 11:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hank, maybe they can't write about JList because JList hasn't told them to write about JList. Now you have wondering - who exactly is writing President Teleprompter's scripts, anyway?
THE FIRST RULE OF J-LIST: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT J-LIST.
34. Posted by James Cloninger | March 17, 2009 11:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 23:13
35. Posted by hyperbolist | March 17, 2009 11:33 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
No, we're supposed to scorn it while shamelessly promoting our blog in comment threads.
35. Posted by hyperbolist | March 17, 2009 11:33 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2009 23:33
36. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 12:02 AM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Mantis, the problem is that journalists are part of the partisan political group here.
We were talking about two different things. The JournoList, and the progressive group conference call. Do try to keep up.
36. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 12:02 AM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 00:02
37. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 12:15 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
We were talking about two different things. The JournoList, and the progressive group conference call. Do try to keep up.
No, Mantis, we're talking about the JournoList. Do try to fucking read.
37. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 12:15 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 00:15
38. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 12:32 AM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
No dipshit, JLawson brought up the conference call, and I was responding to him. We, meaning he/she and I, were talking about two different things. All you have to do is read the thread.
38. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 12:32 AM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 00:32
39. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 8:36 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No dipshit, JLawson brought up the conference call, and I was responding to him. We, meaning he/she and I, were talking about two different things. All you have to do is read the thread.
The original post and the entire thread are about the JournoList. JLawson's only mention of the conference call is an addendum to the Jlist conversation. Your only mention of the conference call is this:
and you want us to believe you were on a tangent and talking about daily conference calls all along? Remind me not to have a conversation with you if there are any shiny objects around.
39. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 8:36 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 08:36
40. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 12:35 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
The original post and the entire thread are about the JournoList.
Yes, I understand that, but JLawson brought up the conference call, referenced it in this statement,
"Get influential groups together to decide what the issue of the day is going to be"
Which I responded to, and then you responded to as if we were talking about JournoList.
Quit being such a fucking retard.
40. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 12:35 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 12:35
41. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 1:10 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Yes, the conference call, which is made up of memmbers of the JournoList, which is what this thread and post are all abo -- LOOK, A SQUIRELL!!
41. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 1:10 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 13:10
42. Posted by hyperbolist | March 18, 2009 1:39 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Liberal activists like Ezra Klein (and Yglesias; and Atrios; and JM Marshall) are actually policy wonks, so yes, it would make sense that journalists wish to hear what they have to say about fucking policy.
Conservative activists don't like these conversations because they involve a nuanced grasp of social policy and economics and nuance is for limp-wristed Ivy Leaguers.
42. Posted by hyperbolist | March 18, 2009 1:39 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 13:39
43. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 2:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Liberal activists like Ezra Klein (and Yglesias; and Atrios; and JM Marshall) are actually policy wonks, so yes, it would make sense that journalists wish to hear what they have to say about fucking policy.
Conservative activists don't like these conversations because they involve a nuanced grasp of social policy and economics and nuance is for limp-wristed Ivy Leaguers.
It actually should make sense that journalists would wish to hear what conservative policy wonks think, too, but they don't. That might lead to balanced and impartial journalism. Nuance.
43. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2009 2:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 14:53
44. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 3:34 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Yes, the conference call, which is made up of memmbers of the JournoList,
No, it's not. It's a conference call of political action groups. Reading is fundamental, fuckwit.
Seriously, just stop. I'm not going to bother with someone who repeatedly refuses to read what he is talking about.
44. Posted by mantis | March 18, 2009 3:34 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 15:34
45. Posted by Brian | March 18, 2009 4:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Now you guys have done it! You've pushed Kos to reveal the vast left wing conspiracy!
We're going to have to bring him up on charges at the next cabal meeting. Err... that don't exist.
45. Posted by Brian | March 18, 2009 4:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2009 16:45