Type to search

Of Course The Press Played A Major Role In Trump’s Victory

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post Politics Top News US

Of Course The Press Played A Major Role In Trump’s Victory

Share
Conway

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. … The money’s rolling in and this is fun.” — CBS CEO Les Moonves discussing Donald Trump, February 2016. 

While reporters and pundits sift through their harassing and sometimes anti-Semitic letters and emails from Trump supporters — and contemplate what the future holds if radio show host Laura Ingraham becomes the next White House press secretary — few seem to be in the mood to reflect on their just-concluded campaign effort. And even fewer scribes seem willing to accept that the media made serious missteps in their election coverage — and that those mistakes helped elect Donald Trump president.

Any implications drawn from the media’s broken performance in 2016, a year when Trump’s former campaign manager was hired by CNN while still cashing Trump campaign paychecks, have been largely waved off. Much of the media’s message today is that the press simply played no significant role in tipping the election to Trump.

Detailing “The Democratic Coalition’s Epic Fail,” The New York Times’ Thomas Edsall cataloged what he saw as the many shortcomings of the Hillary Clinton campaign. What was notably absent from the list of hurdles that Clinton and Democrats failed to clear? The press. It’s not even worth discussing, apparently.

There seems to be little interest in acknowledging that the press virtually extinguished policy and issue coverage this campaign cycle. That journalists were bullied by Trump yet often held him to a lower, softer standard than Clinton (see Clinton Foundation vs. Trump Foundation coverage). That the press somehow managed to help normalize a bigoted Republican nominee who openly embraces white nationalism, while showering him with nonstop attention. Or that the press’s relentlessly caustic Clinton coverage became a hallmark of the campaign.

Immediately following the election, New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. assured readers that “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.” So no, journalists don’t seem interested in self-examination, and they certainly don’t seem open to admitting that their occasionally colossal blunders helped tip the scales in Trump’s favor.

In fact, quite the contrary. “The press succeeded in exposing Trump for what he was. Voters just decided they didn’t care,” Politico announced.

Question: How well did the press succeed in getting Trump to release his tax returns? In getting him to release relevant health information about himself? In getting him to hold a press conference during the final months of the campaign?

Answer: The press failed, categorically, in all those routine pursuits. But many journalists today remain certain everything was fine in 2016.

From CNN reporter Maeve Reston:

Reston claims it’s just “lazy” for people to blame the press in the wake of Trump’s victory, but there is solid data to back up a lot of complaints about lopsided election coverage.

As Media Matters pointed out, in the week after FBI Director James Comey announced that the bureau would be assessing newly discovered emails to find out if they were relevant to its investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server, five of the country’s top newspapers published a total of 100 (100!) stories about or mentioning the emails, 46 of them on the front page. Additionally, the three network evening newscasts devoted a total of 25 minutes to the FBI email story during two crucial weeks late in the campaign, compared to just three minutes of policy coverage.

Meanwhile, NBC’s Katy Tur also seemed to dismiss post-campaign press criticism:

Was the press, in fact, “hostile” to the Clinton campaign? Is Podesta’s point a legitimate one? The answer to that question actually isn’t even in doubt. Study after study demonstrated that Clinton was the recipient of overwhelmingly negative press coverage.

On Twitter, Patrick LaForge, senior editor at The New York Times, suggested it was the FBI that made the Clinton emails such a big issue late in the campaign, and that the paper simply followed the bureau’s lead. But it was Times newsroom bosses, not the FBI director, who decided to run seven front-page email stories in three days late last month while millions of Americans were casting early ballots.

It was Times editors who decided to publish 22 articles mentioning Clinton’s email server in the week after the FBI announcement — over-the-top coverage that at times looked like man-landing-on-the-moon reporting. Just like it was cable news producers who cultivated a manic, hothouse environment in which the term “email” or “emails” was mentioned thousands of times on air in the days following the FBI’s email announcement.

All of this for a vague statement regarding, at the time, unseen emails that may or may not prove significant to any investigation. (They ended up not being significant.)

What are some of the consequences of the media’s failed campaign coverage? And specifically, its failure to hold Trump to the same transparency and disclosure standard as Clinton?

From The Guardian, November 12 (emphasis added):

When President-elect Donald Trump enters the White House next year he will bring with him potential conflicts of interest across all areas of government that are unprecedented in American history.

Trump, who manages a sprawling, international network of businesses, has thus far refused to put his businesses into a blind trust the way his predecessors in the nation’s highest office have traditionally done. Instead he has said his businesses will be run by his own adult children.

The prospect of the president of the United States becoming deeply entangled in business conflicts while trying to lead the world’s most powerful nation is stunning.

But here’s the thing: Journalists knew that many, many months ago. They all knew that if Trump won the presidency he would be wallowing in unprecedented conflicts of interest and that Americans likely wouldn’t be able to tell where Trump’s foreign policy priorities ended and his business goals began.

The looming conflicts were an open secret. So why did that unprecedented threat to transparency generate so little political press attention before the election?

Short answer: Media were too busy hyperventilating about Clinton’s emails. And that’s when they weren’t utterly devoted to undercutting the landmark Clinton charity by hyping supposed conflicts of interest.

Remember when editorial boards lectured Clinton about the need to banish the family’s charity in order to placate the always lurking optics police?

  • “Even if they’ve done nothing illegal, the foundation will always look too much like a conflict of interest for comfort.” (The Boston Globe)
  • “[T]he only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs.” (USA Today)
  • “Impressions such as these are corrosive to national institutions.” (The Washington Post)

By contrast, the press basically gave Trump a pass regarding the land mine of concrete, for-profit conflicts he’d have as president.

Looking back, large, ranging portions of the 2016 campaign coverage were wildly irresponsible. It’s equally negligent now for journalists to pretend they played no role in Trump’s victory.

IMAGE: U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway greet supporters during his election night rally in Manhattan, New York, U.S., November 9, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Tags:

51 Comments

  1. Box November 15, 2016

    There is truth and fiction in the article, but the press DID start the bowl rolling which later took on a life of its own. In an article/leak i previously posted, Hillary asked the press at the beginning to take Trump seriously as a candidate because she wanted someone who would be made so much fun of that it would be extremely easy to defeat him later. She wanted someone easy to squash and put down to widen the gap between voter perception of good and bad candidacies, especially as it applied to Republicans. All the press did was comply. But later it was her own troubles and baggage that set her on a different trajectory than whatever Trump is and she cant blame anyone for that.

    Here, I found one of the articles
    http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/10/08/leaked-emails-show-trump-tool-used-hillary-campaign-day-one/

    Reply
    1. I Am Helpy November 15, 2016

      OK thanks, again, for posting the stuff that’s too stupid & crazy for infowars.

      What are you going to do now that Putin’s paychecks have stopped rolling in?

      Reply
  2. stefanie.fulk November 16, 2016

    After 5 yrs I resigned from my office job and that decision was a life changer for me… I started doing work over internet, over a site I found over internet, for several hours daily, and I profit now much more than i did on my last work… My last month paycheck was for 9k dollars… Amazing thing about this work is that now i have more time with my kids… http://chilp.it/8d93f4b

    Reply
  3. Dominick Vila November 16, 2016

    The press did play a role in Trump’s victory. If nothing else because they took the bait every time Donald made an outrageous statement, and gave him a level of coverage that allowed him to remain on the spotlight, almost continuously, without spending large amount of money in advertising. The press also failed to conduct the investigative reporting that would have challenged Trump’s assertions with facts.
    The press was not the only one that facilitated his victory, however. Comey’s memo to Congress changed the narrative 11 days before the election, stopped Hillary’s momentum, and put her on the defensive at the most critical point in the campaign. The erroneous conclusions reached by the pathetic pollsters contributed to Hillary, and her campaign staff, to be over confident. That’s the only excuse I can make for Hillary’s decision to ignore the plight of millions of blue collar workers displaced by new technologies, automation, and outsourcing. By the time she realized that she was in trouble, not only in battleground states, but in blue states as well, it was too late. Millions of Democrats voted for Trump, or did not vote, as a result of her indifference. The very effective demonization campaign carried out by the GOP, and in some cases very poor judgment by Hillary (her decision to use a private server for official use) gave Trump, and the GOP in general, an opening to attack her and discredit her.
    I doubt Bernie would have done any better. His negatives were as bad as Hillary’s. Democrats must reflect on what happened, determine the causes for this resounding defeat, and take effective steps to embrace policies that appeal, not only to folks in populous, affluent, states but to those who are struggling to make ends meet and get ahead. The reasons for the angst that so many people feel are not as important as listening to what they are saying, and proposing policies designed to help them overcome their challenges. Preferably, in a simple and clear way that is easily understood. Hillary’s detailed proposals fell on deaf ears. Trump’s simplistic, but clear proposals resonated with those who had lost hope, and allowed him to win the Electoral College vote by a large margin with the help of millions of blue collar Democrats. That the lesson we have to learn and address.

    Reply
    1. Theodora30 November 16, 2016

      Hillary’s proposals fell on the deaf ears of the media who then had the nerve to excoriate her for not addressing the concerns of working class people. Joan Walsh made that clear in an article in The Nation:
      “….she had more of a message than her lefty haters give her credit for. One low point this week came on Sunday, as I watched a group of Clinton critics on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” decry her lack of a populist economic message, as old video of Clinton speaking, with no sound, played behind their criticism. I could see her mouth the words “Wall Street,” “banks” and “hedge funds” but I could only hear her critics. It was a microcosm of the whole campaign. (Thanks to Joy Reid, I got to say exactly that.)”
      I remember the mockery of the media when Hillary spoke the truth about coal jobs not coming back. Pundits focused on how stupid that was to say (bad political strategy) and ignored the fact that she followed that statement up with a discussion of how to help those coal workers, for example by promoting green energy jobs in their states.
      The MSM excoriated Gore for having the gall to bore them with substantive policy ideas, hailing Bush as more fun to have a beer with. They willingly went along with right wing lies about Gore (he never claimed to have invented the internet) and gave their frat boy pal Bush a pass on serious flaws lie his failure to fulfill his National Guard Duty.
      Over a year ago The NY Times and the Wa Po signed agreements with Breitbart affiliated author Peter Schweitzer to use his “reporting” on the Clinton Foundation in his book “Clinton Cash”. Those reports were quickly debunked by others who decided to be real journalists and fact check but the damage was done. In contrast the same media ignored the egregious dealings of the Trump Foundation until far too late in the campaign when millions had made up their minds.
      When their candidates get trashed like this Democrats do not fight back the way Republicans do when their guys get attacked. Until they figure out how to push back against the unfair treatment by the mainstream media they will continue to flounder.

      Reply
    2. Theodora30 November 16, 2016

      Hillary’s proposals fell on the deaf ears of the media who refused to report on them, preferring to focus pseudo scandals and process over substance. The did the same thing to Gore.
      Joan Walsh pointed this out in an article in “The Nation”:
      “… she had more of a message than her lefty haters give her credit for. One low point this week came on Sunday, as I watched a group of Clinton critics on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” decry her lack of a populist economic message, as old video of Clinton speaking, with no sound, played behind their criticism. I could see her mouth the words “Wall Street,” “banks” and “hedge funds” but I could only hear her critics. It was a microcosm of the whole campaign. (Thanks to Joy Reid, I got to say exactly that.)”
      When Hillary gave a speech about the problems in coal states, unlike Trump, she spoke the truth saying that those jobs were not coming back. She then went on to speak of possible ways to address the problem, for example bringing green energy jobs to those states. The media reported on the “stupidity” of her speaking the truth then glossed over the fact that the point of the speech was solutions. In contrast Trump repeatedly lied about bringing back coal jobs but I never heard Trump being excoriated for egregiously misleading voters about bringing back jobs.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila November 16, 2016

        I agree. Unfortunately, many voters, logical proposals, based on circumstances and facts, is not what they want to hear. They are likely to be more impressed by a cute slogan or a simplistic solution, than a well thought out plan. To his credit, Trump understood that fact better than Hillary, and delivered the goods that displaced assembly line workers, coal miners, and steel mill workers wanted to hear. With that in mind, the fact that several blue states turned red, and handed the EC to Trump, was something that every political strategist should have been able to identify long before they did.

        Reply
        1. Theodora30 November 16, 2016

          That is certainly what the media thinks but I have a feeling it may be a self fulfilling prophecy. I still remember when the mainstream media trashed a State of the Union speech by Bill Clinton as a boring “laundry list” of specific “small bore” proposals. I specifically remember Peter Jennings going on about it. I was stunned because I had liked the speech a lot. The next morning when the polls of viewers came in it showed a very strong favorable reaction by the public who like the specifics. Granted that was before so many switched to getting their “news” from Fox but it still said a lot about what the media thinks of the public.

          I grew up in Appalachia and I know those people would respond to specific proposals to bring in new, good jobs and revitalize their communities. I do not think any party has really tried to do that since the War on Poverty.

          I am also puzzled that Obama is getting a pass on what has happened. There was a drastic failure to get Democrats out to vote during the last midterms but he is never blamed for that. I think it is entirely possible that those working class people who voted for him twice but voted for Trump this time (apparently enough to cost Hillary rust belt states) may have lost faith because of the slow progress in the recovery in their areas.

          Obama gets excused because of the obstructionism of Republicans who refused to pass anything but that could t have stopped him and the Democrat from repeatedly bringing up jobs bills so the Republicans would be forced to shoot them down. The Republicans have used that tactic on the ACA, voting over and over to repeal it making it clear to everyone how strongly they felt. Obama should have done the same to them. He also should have frequently traveled to impoverished communities to address these issues. It reminds me of his backing down on a public option before negotiations even started instead of putting up a fight. People assume what you fight hard for, even if it is hopeless, shows what you value most.

          Let me be clear that I think Obama has done great things in extremely difficult circumstances but he dropped the ball when it comes to promoting his party’s values to the public.

          Reply
          1. itsfun November 16, 2016

            The way Obama went on the campaign trail for Hillary and called President elect trump nasty names, tells me the American public completely destroyed his legacy. He said he would take it as a personal insult if Hillary lost. He must feel very insulted. I don’t remember ever seeing a sitting President go on the campaign trail like he did, instead of doing his job.

            Reply
          2. Theodora30 November 16, 2016

            I have never seen a candidate as despicable as Trump. When he crashes and burns (probably taking us with him) I doubt that Obama’s reputation will suffer. There is a time to stop being polite and this is it.

            Reply
          3. itsfun November 16, 2016

            Apparently you didn’t notice Hillary was running for President. President Trump doesn’t that have a nice ring to it?

            Reply
          4. Oddworld November 16, 2016

            Itsfun, it could have been nothing more than Hillary and the Democratic party fatigue by the left that sealed her fate. To prove my point, Bernie would never have gained the kind of traction he did early on if people weren’t tired of the same old arguments made by the same old familiar faces. The same thing is also what catapulted Trump to the head of a very crowded field of Republican candidates. IMHO I believe the history’s of Hillary and Trump played a more peripheral role than pundits would have us believe. The die was probably already caste as far back as Feb.

            Reply
          5. I Am Helpy November 18, 2016

            Oh no! Obama offended the racists who already hated him! What was he thinking.

            Reply
          6. itsfun November 18, 2016

            Are all the people that voted for Obama, then voted for President elect Trump now racists too? You lost.

            Reply
          7. I Am Helpy November 18, 2016

            All those imaginary people.

            Reply
          8. Dominick Vila November 16, 2016

            The reason President Obama could not accomplish more than he did was largely because of obstructionism, and the use of excuses such as a law enacted by the GOP majority in the House establish spending limits, which they used to block his infrastructure proposal in 2009. The House is voting, as we speak, on lifting the Spending restrictions they put in place to limit President Obama’s ability to stimulate the economy and engage in projects that are desperately needed and would have created hundred of thousands of jobs. This is cynicism on steroids.

            Reply
          9. Theodora30 November 16, 2016

            I understand that. But Republicans knew Obama would obstruct their repeated attempts to repeal the ACA yet that did not stop them from trying again and again. They did it so that their supporters could have no doubt about their position. I think Obama and the Democrats should have done the same by repeatedly introducing jobs bills knowing Republicans would kill them. That way working class people would have realized they were a big priority for Democrats.

            Reply
          10. Dominick Vila November 16, 2016

            Good point. Had President Obama done that after the GOP rejected his request for investment in infrastructure, he would have been able to expose the hypocrisy of the GOP.

            Reply
      2. kep November 16, 2016

        The liberal media did everything they could to prop up Hillary. Never a bad press release on hillary, yet any and every accusation on trump was front page. Cnn feedeing questions for debates to hillary, other liberal reporters moderating debates sided with Hillary against Trump. Yeah, right, the press was definitely on Trumps side.

        Reply
        1. Dominick Vila November 16, 2016

          Are you kidding? The media covered the Benghazi, Hillary’s private server, and the Clinton Foundation to the point of hysteria or boredom, dependent which side the audience was on.
          They also devoted substantially more air time to Trump than to Hillary. Admittedly, because Trump knew how to use them, and Hillary didn’t.

          Reply
        2. I Am Helpy November 16, 2016

          What’s the weather like there in bizarro dimension? Does rain fall up?

          Reply
  4. blanche.herrera.92 November 16, 2016

    1 yr have passed since I decided to leave my previous work and I am so happy now… I started to work from my house, over a site I stumbled upon on-line, several hrs every day, and I earn much more than i did on my office work… Last payment i got was for 9 thousand bucks… Awesome thing about this work is that now i have more free time to spend with my family… http://chilp.it/8d93f4b

    Reply
  5. itsfun November 16, 2016

    Now the press is all pissed off at President – elect Trump because he took him family out to dinner last night without telling them. How dare the President – elect take his family to dinner with out letting reporters know. I guess the press believe he needs to clear his dinner plans with them.

    Reply
    1. Dan S November 16, 2016

      They just needed to go to Burger King ???? ???? where the Trump clan can be treated like royalty ????

      Reply
      1. itsfun November 16, 2016

        My preference is Wendy’s

        Reply
        1. I Am Helpy November 18, 2016

          It’s literally not possible for you to be whiter.

          Reply
          1. itsfun November 18, 2016

            Are you now calling Wendy’s racist. All you have is yelling racist, bigot, hater, or blame someone for your failures. You lost.

            Reply
          2. I Am Helpy November 18, 2016

            Sorry that you’re so white that vanilla seems exotic.

            Reply
    2. I Am Helpy November 16, 2016

      OK thanks for sharing your made-up outrage with us.

      Reply
      1. itsfun November 17, 2016

        Lets see how many times did you tell me “you lose”. Guess what YOU LOST. You have been gone a while, are you out of mourning now, or are you of the protestors breaking windows, starting fires and beating people up? If you are so worried about President – elect Trump, and his eating habits, maybe he will send you a menu of what his family may eat. Doesn’t saying President Trump have a nice ring to it?

        Reply
        1. I Am Helpy November 17, 2016

          Sorry that you don’t understand that putting yourself out of a job and destroying your healthcare system is actually losing. Don’t see what your doltish incomprehension on that topic has to do with the other post, though.

          Reply
          1. itsfun November 17, 2016

            President Trump get use to it

            Reply
          2. I Am Helpy November 17, 2016

            Dying in poverty get used to it. Sorry you couldn’t come up with anything good.

            Reply
          3. itsfun November 17, 2016

            not sorry that you lost

            Reply
          4. I Am Helpy November 17, 2016

            How did I lose? I don’t live in the US, and your election of an unhinged and incompetent racist has driven a lot of business and talent out of the country. It’s terrible for America, but I made so much money from you tanking your economy in order to Punish The Uppity Minorities.

            Reply
          5. itsfun November 18, 2016

            You lost because you are a loser. One great thing is you don’t live here. Although you seem to think you have some kind of right to tell Americans who to vote for. How much foreign aid does you country get from US taxpayers? You lost.

            Reply
          6. I Am Helpy November 18, 2016

            I’m sorry that you’re functionally illiterate; not my problem. Sorry you decided to put yourself out of work and destroy your healthcare because of racist fables!

            Reply
  6. mike November 16, 2016

    More whining from the left on losing the Election. Media Research found from January to June Networks spent 4 times as much negative coverage on Trump than on Hillary.
    Watchdog Center for Public Integrity found journalist favored Clinton 27-1 and 430 media businesses donated to Hillary compared to 50 for Trump. This industry tends to employ liberals that is a known fact. Journalist gave $400,000 to Hillary. And to Trump?

    During the week of October 18 NYT’s had 11 negative stories(including one in sports section) and ZERO against Clinton and all the WikiLeaks information. On Thursday night of the 20th the networks spent 23 minutes on trumps sexual allegations and 1 minute 7 seconds on Podesta emails which included derogatory comments by senior staff about Catholics, Latinos, NAACP, sympathy for Wall Street, advocation for open borders and media collusion with Hillary’s campaign.

    Comparing the two conventions, Trump news coverage was 75% negative while Hillary’s received from 44% to 50% positive coverage. No, bias on the left, often subtle and unconscious, exists far more against the right.

    Reply
    1. Thoughtopsy November 16, 2016

      Nice diversion and cherry picking.

      Reply
      1. mike November 16, 2016

        Get off your a$$ and refute.

        Reply
        1. I Am Helpy November 16, 2016

          “Why won’t you jump through my stupid hoops”
          – random racist dude

          Reply
          1. mike November 17, 2016

            ????????????????????????????????????
            Pathetic, little whinny mental midget!

            Reply
          2. I Am Helpy November 17, 2016

            OK sorry you got nothing but abuse.

            Reply
          3. I Am Helpy November 17, 2016

            Also if you’re going to insult people for their supposed lack of intelligence, maybe you should learn to spell.

            Reply
          4. mike November 17, 2016

            Misspelled but the meaning didn’t change, little whiny one.

            Reply
          5. I Am Helpy November 17, 2016

            “I’m illiterate and abusive and I can’t think of anything to say”
            – you, some racist dude

            Reply
  7. skilletblonde November 16, 2016

    In September, Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald dropped a story about Trump’s businesses dealings being a threat to national security. I remember it well. You would have thought it would have been a major story throughout mainstream television sphere. But it wasn’t. Because, on the very same day that Eichenwald’s story broke, Trump was appearing on Dr.Oz show. Throughout, the entire day Dr. Oz and Trump received the echo chamber, wall to wall, coverage.

    For the most part, citizens were unaware that Trump had been bankrupt 6 times, or that many of his business ventures were failures. They didn’t know about the 3500 lawsuits, one that was pending for rape. Nor did they know he owed money to foreign entities, and had ties to organized crime figures. Yet, this was the man that was going to make America great again. The citizens didn’t know because the M$M never bothered to vet the man. They just gave him 3 billion in free media because he was good for their ratings. Now we’re stuck with the results.

    Lastly, The direction of our Fourth Estate has been in peril for some time. With its use of false equivalencies, and its treatment of the truth as an opinion, instead of a fact, it is no guardian of democracy. This is the same media that hounded and harassed President Obama over a fake, offensive, story about his birth, but ignored undisputed truths about Trump’s corruption. They provided an unmitigated platform to people like Trump and the right-wing to propagate conspiracy theories about the President’s citizenship. The results, because the the coverage was so dogmatic and continuous, that the President of the United States had to show his birth certificate. Trump has never released his tax returns, medical records, or any requests about his finances. As a matter of fact, he banned a lot of the press. And that’s just find with the M$M.

    Reply
    1. Jon November 16, 2016

      Excellent summary. I used to watch and listen in disbelief as MSM ignored important stories about the dangers Trump posed and failed to challenge the distortions, half-truths, and lies Trump and his surrogates told as if they were referees in a sports event not wanting to appear partial while they pilloried Hillary Clinton. It was just astonishing and disgusting.

      Reply
  8. secondclassguy November 16, 2016

    Even daytime MSNBC seemed like fox news during this election. People like Andrea Mitchell who seen an opportunity to constantly jump on all the fake scandals. I think she has some deep mental problems

    Reply
  9. woodrose November 16, 2016

    Hillary could have used all that money she collected to create and run ads telling us of her plans and policies. Every Hillary For Prez ad I saw (not too many, I don’t watch too much TV) was about the non-PC remarks of Trump. With the sound off, they looked like Trump ads.

    Reply
  10. olivewhitworth December 2, 2016

    It’s been one yr since I abandoned my last job and i couldn’t be happier now… I started working from home, for this company I discovered on-line, for several hrs /a day, and I profit now much more than i did on my last work… My last month paycheck was for 9k… Great thing about this is that i have more free time for my family… http://chilp.it/13548ef

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.