Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Another example of Fox Fake News- based upon the criteria established by the OP
Quoting the OP:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
Fox News’s appalling past 72 hours, analyzed
The Mueller indictment provides many details of how the Russian operation worked. It’s not the kind of story that should spiral entirely into political speculation. And, if anything, it is concrete evidence that Mueller’s investigation isn’t just a witch hunt against Trump, as the president has often said, but rather a truth-finding endeavor.
But that’s not the story we got on Fox News.
On Fox News, a full-throated defense of Trump
Instead of focusing on the details of the indictment itself, pundits on Fox News spent a good chunk of their airtime pointing out that this isn’t proof of the Trump administration colluding with Russia.
It’s been an astounding 72 hours on Fox News
The data paints a clear story of how damaging it is for a media outlet to prioritize its defense of the president. In the past 72 hours, Fox News:
- Limited its coverage of what the indictment actually reveals: evidence of foreign organizations trying to undermine American democracy
- Drastically reduced coverage of the Florida school shooting to push pundits onto TV to say this story actually vindicates President Trump, even though it does nothing of the sort
- Used a detail of the school shooting to push the narrative that the FBI, and by extension the Muller investigation, is flawed — and gave cover to President Trump
Sorry but your source is actually putting out fake news on Fox News reporting on the indictments. They have covered them absolutely thoroughly--the pros, the cons, what they say, what they don't say, that they are not an exoneration of the Trump campaign but only dismiss Trump involvement in that part of the investigation. I have been watching the whole thing from Fox and Friends in the morning through the day and evening line up. You are getting the whole story from Fox, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not from anybody else.
Another example of Fox Fake News- based upon the criteria established by the OP
Quoting the OP:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
Fox News’s appalling past 72 hours, analyzed
The Mueller indictment provides many details of how the Russian operation worked. It’s not the kind of story that should spiral entirely into political speculation. And, if anything, it is concrete evidence that Mueller’s investigation isn’t just a witch hunt against Trump, as the president has often said, but rather a truth-finding endeavor.
But that’s not the story we got on Fox News.
On Fox News, a full-throated defense of Trump
Instead of focusing on the details of the indictment itself, pundits on Fox News spent a good chunk of their airtime pointing out that this isn’t proof of the Trump administration colluding with Russia.
It’s been an astounding 72 hours on Fox News
The data paints a clear story of how damaging it is for a media outlet to prioritize its defense of the president. In the past 72 hours, Fox News:
- Limited its coverage of what the indictment actually reveals: evidence of foreign organizations trying to undermine American democracy
- Drastically reduced coverage of the Florida school shooting to push pundits onto TV to say this story actually vindicates President Trump, even though it does nothing of the sort
- Used a detail of the school shooting to push the narrative that the FBI, and by extension the Muller investigation, is flawed — and gave cover to President Trump
Sorry but your source is actually putting out fake news on Fox News reporting on the indictments. They have covered them absolutely thoroughly--the pros, the cons, what they say, what they don't say, that they are not an exoneration of the Trump campaign but only dismiss Trump involvement in that part of the investigation. I have been watching the whole thing from Fox and Friends in the morning through the day and evening line up. You are getting the whole story from Fox, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not from anybody else.
Sorry, but I stand by the article. Fox is doing what it stands for- totally biased reporting in favor of Trump and the GOP.
I don't doubt that the facts did emerge within the entire Fox broadcast, but that their coverage was biased to the point of dishonesty.
Another example of Fox Fake News- based upon the criteria established by the OP
Quoting the OP:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
Fox News’s appalling past 72 hours, analyzed
The Mueller indictment provides many details of how the Russian operation worked. It’s not the kind of story that should spiral entirely into political speculation. And, if anything, it is concrete evidence that Mueller’s investigation isn’t just a witch hunt against Trump, as the president has often said, but rather a truth-finding endeavor.
But that’s not the story we got on Fox News.
On Fox News, a full-throated defense of Trump
Instead of focusing on the details of the indictment itself, pundits on Fox News spent a good chunk of their airtime pointing out that this isn’t proof of the Trump administration colluding with Russia.
It’s been an astounding 72 hours on Fox News
The data paints a clear story of how damaging it is for a media outlet to prioritize its defense of the president. In the past 72 hours, Fox News:
- Limited its coverage of what the indictment actually reveals: evidence of foreign organizations trying to undermine American democracy
- Drastically reduced coverage of the Florida school shooting to push pundits onto TV to say this story actually vindicates President Trump, even though it does nothing of the sort
- Used a detail of the school shooting to push the narrative that the FBI, and by extension the Muller investigation, is flawed — and gave cover to President Trump
Sorry but your source is actually putting out fake news on Fox News reporting on the indictments. They have covered them absolutely thoroughly--the pros, the cons, what they say, what they don't say, that they are not an exoneration of the Trump campaign but only dismiss Trump involvement in that part of the investigation. I have been watching the whole thing from Fox and Friends in the morning through the day and evening line up. You are getting the whole story from Fox, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not from anybody else.
Sorry, but I stand by the article. Fox is doing what it stands for- totally biased reporting in favor of Trump and the GOP.
I don't doubt that the facts did emerge within the entire Fox broadcast, but that their coverage was biased to the point of dishonesty.
You'll have to prove that. Because the article you posted is biased to the point of blatantly dishonesty to the point of being totally false.
I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.
Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.
Dang..this thread still alive, eh? Not much to add..I said my say..and after rereading it..see no reason to modify my stance.Just a quick note that after spending long, detailed, segments adding up to hours on the Russian collusion thing and insisting that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty, the networks spent less than a minute reporting the House Intelligence Committee's findings of no Russian collusion re either the Trump or Hillary campaigns last night. That is NOT fair and balanced reporting.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
I am putting this in the CDZ as I would like a serious, civil discussion re the serious business of media coverage that is:
1. Biased to the point of dishonesty
2. Erroneous to the point of incompetence
3. Fake news in that it is information created or repeated that is patently false.
Based on posts and people recruited to be talking heads on television, it seems obvious some think this syndrome doesn't exist at all or it is purely an invention of Fox News. Others are diligently pointing out that it does exist and is mean, cruel, hateful, and detrimental to us as a society.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
The poll is set so that people can change their vote if they change their mind during the discussion.
The problem with fake news is not how badly they go after Republicans. It's that they give a complete pass to Democrats. All I want is them to go after Democrats like they do Republicans.
But they actually lie to help Democrats. And they're so hysterical. Blamery is in India trashing Americans as racist pigs who subjugate our women. That is not good for America or the rest of humanity.
And it's constant and pushed by the media with endless lies like that Trump called Mexicans racists and murderers.
That is all the majority of Americans hear as well, and yes, it is a crisis that level of dishonesty is not the exception but the rule
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
Just a quick note that after spending long, detailed, segments adding up to hours on the Russian collusion thing and insisting that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty, the networks spent less than a minute reporting the House Intelligence Committee's findings of no Russian collusion re either the Trump or Hillary campaigns last night. That is NOT fair and balanced reporting.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.
I actually agree with what you said.
I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.
Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'
Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.
I actually agree with what you said.
I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.
Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'
Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.
It is the media's choice whether or not to check the facts of President Trump's tweets. He is not media and he has every right to say whatever he wants to say in those tweets unless it is illegal to tweet the information because it is classified or some such.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.
I actually agree with what you said.
I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.
Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'
Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.
It is the media's choice whether or not to check the facts of President Trump's tweets. He is not media and he has every right to say whatever he wants to say in those tweets unless it is illegal to tweet the information because it is classified or some such. If the media simply reported them without comment or without speculating what he meant by those tweets, that is one thing. But when they almost universally assume what he meant despite that the tweet didn't say it, then it becomes fake news.
President Trump makes many tweets and Facebook posts, most of which should encourage and inspire the intellectually honest. Does the media ever feature any of those? Nope. They did feature a lot of President Obama's comments like that. But if President Trump makes one provocative comment among dozens of positive ones, that becomes headline news. When President Obama did it, only the barest of mentions if any at all. Or the media took pains to explain what he really meant.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.
I actually agree with what you said.
I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.
Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'
Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.
For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.
[
For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.
So what do you think? This is the thread to express your opinions and impressions and also to post examples of fake/erroneous/misrepresented news that you run across and/or examples of news labeled 'fake' that turned out to be true.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone watches mass media news. When I ask people, they always say, "Well, you've got to stay informed." But this perilously consolidated propaganda machine can only be considered "information" in the broadest possible sense (e.g. "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae" is also information, in that your eyes and ears are perceiving existent phenomena).
With just a handful of mega-corps owning all the mass media outlets in the nation, it's prudent to suspect that wealthy and powerful corporate owners may have reciprocal relationships with politicians; and that purity of information we receive via those outlets may be jeopardized. At the very least, we know that they can only report a fraction of the information available each day, and so some system of prioritization must exist, and will necessarily be subjective. And as a matter of common sense, we can all clearly see that news programs have agendas.
One mitigating factor that would help limit the intellectual damage resulting from the above scenario is to keep our thinking rooted in core principles. Philosophy (all but taboo in popular culture) can always be relied upon to sort out wheat from chaff, and though often thought impractical, is actually an exercise in practicality itself, though on a root level. After all, what is more practical than fundamental truths from which all else springs?
In this way, I find the news to be largely unnecessary; as the celebritization of political personalities does nothing to change the fact that the very validity of their authority has no rational basis. But this is a matter for another thread...
No people will be free for long without a free, uncontrolled, reasonably objective, reasonably given to honesty and integrity means of communication and receiving information. It is necessary. Which is why fake news created for purposes of political or ideological expediency is so evil and so contrary to all concept of liberty.
I actually agree with what you said.
I just disagree with you regarding what constitutes 'fake news'.
Not giving as much time reporting as you think was deserved for the story of the Republicans releasing a report saying that the Trump campaign didn't collude is not 'fake news'
Trump tweeting another falsehood to get picked up and spread by the media- that is actual Fake News. And that is dangerous.
For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.
Really? Did the 'media' have it? Or did one man have it- and decided to release it now?
Go ahead- prove that the media 'had it' before President Obama's election.
Because if you can't- well then you are guilty of spreading "Fake News"
Decade-old photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan surfaces
Photographer Askia Muhammad told the Trice Edney News Wire that he kept the image secret because he believed it could have harmed Obama’s chances of becoming president. It was first published Saturday on northstarnewstoday.com.
"I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy," Muhammad said in an interview with the news wire. "But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was president, it was kept under cover."
Talking Points Memo talked with Muhammad on Thursday. He told TPM that a "staff member" for the caucus contacted him "sort of in a panic" after he took the photo.
"I sort of understood what was going on," Muhammad told TPM. "I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan," the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.
Muhammad said he gave away "the disk" from his camera but "copied the photograph from that day onto a file" on his computer.
The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G
— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 25, 2018
Now, more than 12 years later, the photo has been included in a self-published book by Muhammad to be released Jan. 31 — "The Autobiography of Charles 67X".
Just a quick note that after spending long, detailed, segments adding up to hours on the Russian collusion thing and insisting that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty, the networks spent less than a minute reporting the House Intelligence Committee's findings of no Russian collusion re either the Trump or Hillary campaigns last night. That is NOT fair and balanced reporting.
When did ANY network insist that the Trump campaign was absolutely guilty?
If you can't show that- well of course then your post would not be 'fair and balanced' posting.
[
For example. This photo was taken in 2005 and the media had it. Did they ever feature it before or after President Obama's election? Nope. Now imagine if that was President Trump in the photo instead of President Obama. That would have been good for a month of headlines. And that is part of the fake news syndrome as much as anything else.
Want a real example of media burying a story?
National Enquirer Paid to Kill Story of Playboy Model's Affair with Donald Trump: Report
National Enquirer Paid to Kill Story of Playboy Model's Affair with Donald Trump: Report
She and American Media Inc. — the Enquirer‘s parent company — reportedly reached an agreement in early August for what she thought would be a exposé on their alleged affair, according to a contract obtained by the the Journal. But the Enquirer pulled what is known in the industry as a “catch and kill” on the story – buying the rights to the McDougal’s story forever without obliging to publish it, according to the Journal.
