Home Mail Chat Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > Washington DC and The Holy Land

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2008, 09:32 AM  
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Make America Great Again
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $33532
The Media's Liberal Bias Bias

I'm not going to argue that the media isn't generally liberally biased, as I generally believe that it is. But in specific instances (such as this election season), I think we focus on the wrong things to determine whether this is actually true.

Jake, for example, focused on the fact that the donations from the media have largely favored Obama. But that's just private citizens acting like private citizens -- we should instead focus on coverage.

Now a lot of the conservatives here have taken the fact that the anchors from the three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) went overseas with Obama as surefire evidence that they are in the bag for Obama. But an interesting study has emerged about those exact news teams, which remain the most popular news outlets in the country.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which has been studying the media 20 years, has released a report showing the negative-to-positive stories aired about each candidate by ABC, NBC, and CBS.

The results intially, from the primaries, certainly vindicate some sort of media bias: 64% of statements about Obama were positive, and just 43% of statements about McCain were positive. That does favor Obama, but according to the CMPA, there was a very low frequency of these types of statements.

The frequency of positive/negative statements always picks up during the general election, however, and looky what researchers found: from the day Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, only 28% of the coverage was positive for Obama and a whopping 72% was negative. For McCain, 43% of the statements were positive and 57% negative.

Instead of a severe political bias, it's more accurate to look at this in practical terms: the media enjoyed the new guy, but when he emerged as the front runner, it became incredibly critical. This is not for political reasons, it's for basic psychological reasons.

Just thought you'd like to know.
Posts: 54,035
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:37 AM   #2
morphius morphius is offline
World's finest morphius
 
morphius's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $15127
Yeah, critical like, "Why hasn't Obama taken a huge lead in a year where the republican candidate should get destroyed?" Sadly I have heard this more than once this season.
Posts: 25,130
morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.morphius is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 10:27 AM   #3
beer bacon beer bacon is offline
WHAT
 
beer bacon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kansas City, MO
Casino cash: $9645
The worst thing about modern media is that it seems like at least half the time they just act like stenographers. Instead of analyzing the factuality of certain claims or attacks made by politicians, they repeat the claims/attacks word-for-word, and then discuss their "impact."

Very little is done in the way of investigating the accuracy of the claims or attacks. It is not whether the claims are true or not, it is how does this make McCain look bad? How does this make Obama look good? Will *insert demographic here* respond to this?
Posts: 9,294
beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.beer bacon must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 10:29 AM   #4
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Make America Great Again
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $33532
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphius View Post
Yeah, critical like, "Why hasn't Obama taken a huge lead in a year where the republican candidate should get destroyed?" Sadly I have heard this more than once this season.
That's not a negative story.
__________________
Posts: 54,035
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2008, 03:00 AM   #5
007 007 is offline
Shaken. Not stirred.
 
007's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Casino cash: $35326
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by beer bacon View Post
The worst thing about modern media is that it seems like at least half the time they just act like stenographers. Instead of analyzing the factuality of certain claims or attacks made by politicians, they repeat the claims/attacks word-for-word, and then discuss their "impact."

Very little is done in the way of investigating the accuracy of the claims or attacks. It is not whether the claims are true or not, it is how does this make McCain look bad? How does this make Obama look good? Will *insert demographic here* respond to this?
They are certainly no Walter Cronkite.
__________________
Tell me, what lunatic asylum did they let you out of?
Posts: 60,386
007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.007 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 06:22 AM   #6
scho63 scho63 is offline
Politically Incorrect
 
scho63's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Casino cash: $20000
Wikileaks has shown that not only is the media completely biased for the Liberals, they have now become participants and water carriers for the Democrats.

Is it any surprise they are rated so low for trust and truth? Very little true journalists left.

See if you can find any story on CNN's front page about Hillary's emails and all the nasty things she is saying about evangelicals, normal everyday Americans, and the rest of her hatred towards most people who are not elitists.

She is a SEE YOU NEXT TUESDAY
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	screencapture-cnn-1476274485180.jpg
Views:	46
Size:	62.7 KB
ID:	113062  
__________________
"The only difference between sex for free and sex for money is that sex for free costs you a WHOLE LOT more!" ~Redd Foxx~


2018 Adopt a Chief - Clark Hunt and Brett Veach
"The men who drafted Patrick Mahomes"


Posts: 18,944
scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 06:41 AM   #7
Fire Me Boy! Fire Me Boy! is offline
Cast Iron Jedi
 
Fire Me Boy!'s Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Casino cash: $0
VARSITY
This seems like a reasonable place to put this. I know most won't read it, and I know I'll probably catch a ration of shit about it. I usually don't post articles in full, but I figure that's the only way some of you might actually consider it.

This is not a political piece; it's a statement from someone "in the trenches" posted as an op-ed.

Quote:
Dear readers: Please stop calling us ‘the media.’ There is no such thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...dc7_story.html

To: Everyone

From: Paul Farhi

Subject: “The media.”


Folks, I know a lot of you don’t like the people who work in my chosen profession, the news business. I’m aware you think we’re lazy and unfair (yes, I got your emails and tweets on this topic — a few thousand of them). Of course, I disagree with you. I know a lot of fine people in the newsgathering arts and sciences. But that’s not why I’m writing.

I’m writing because I have a request: Please stop calling us “the media.”

Yes, in some sense, we are the media. But not in the blunt way you use the phrase. It’s so imprecise and generic that it has lost any meaning. It’s — how would you put this? — lazy and unfair.

As I understand your use of this term, “the media” is essentially shorthand for anything you read, saw or heard today that you disagreed with or didn’t like. At any given moment, “the media” is biased against your candidate, your issue, your very way of life.

But, you know, the media isn’t really doing that. Some article, some news report, some guy spouting off on a CNN panel or at CrankyCrackpot.com might be. But none of those things singularly are really the media.

Fact is, there really is no such thing as “the media.” It’s an invention, a tool, an all-purpose smear by people who can’t be bothered to make distinctions.

Consider: There are hundreds of broadcast and cable TV networks, a thousand or so local TV stations, a few thousand magazines and newspapers, several thousand radio stations and roughly a gazillion websites, blogs, newsletters and podcasts. There’s also Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and who knows what new digital thing.

All of these, collectively, now constitute the media.

But this vast array of news and information sources — from the New York Times to Rubber and Plastics News — helps define what’s wrong with referring to “the media.” With so many sources, one-size-fits-all reporting is impossible. Those who work in the media don’t gather in our huddle rooms each morning and light up the teleconference lines with plots to nettle and unsettle you. There is no media in the sense of a conspiracy to tilt perception.

Instead, we are tens of thousands of people making millions of individual decisions about how we perceive the world and how to characterize it. We all don’t agree on how to frame a candidate, an issue or last night’s ballgame.

So even if something on Fox News alarmed or infuriated you, Fox isn’t “the media.” Nor is NBC or MSNBC. Nor The Washington Post, the New York Post, the Denver Post or the Saturday Evening Post.

Lumping these disparate entities under the same single bland label is like describing the denizens of the ocean as “the fish.” It’s true, but effectively meaningless.

We not only don’t agree from TV network to TV network, or publication to publication, but we don’t agree within our own organizations. The editorial page of The Washington Post isn’t the news side of The Washington Post. The newspaper’s bloggers aren’t the newspaper’s op-ed writers; our op-ed columnists aren’t our reporters. None of these people alone reflects the definitive, collective judgment of The Washington Post.

It’s true that many people say they mistrust “the media” and hold us in roughly the same contempt as Congress, telemarketers and Zika. (Two markers here: Gallup reported last week that “trust and confidence” in broadcast and newspaper reporting fell to the lowest level yet recorded; a poll published Wednesday by NBC and the Wall Street Journal pegged the “unfavorable” rating for “the news media” at just above that of “Vladimir Putin.”)

But I suspect that people don’t really dislike us as much as they say they do. Much of what we produce is consumed gratefully, or at least without objection — breaking news stories, investigative journalism, “human interest” features, news from up the street and around the world. People actually like and trust the news sources that they’ve selected for themselves, which is why they keep coming back to them day after day. Survey respondents just don’t acknowledge this when asked about the shapeless abstraction known as “the news media.”

And yes, many people tell us “the media” is liberally biased. I suppose it would seem that way since conservative politicians and their supporters have been saying it for decades. Surely, some stories do display a tendency to favor the liberal position. But these are anecdotes. And like all anecdotal “evidence,” they are subject to confirmation bias — the tendency to look for things that reinforce one’s worldview, thus creating a perpetual-motion machine of self-righteousness.

The vast warehouse of academic research on media bias suggests a less satisfying conclusion: It depends. “Media bias” depends on what is studied, when and even by whom; it depends, too, on one’s definitions of “liberal” and “conservative.” In aggregate, however, liberal and conservative biases in reporting appear to cancel each other out, according to a 2012 “meta-analysis” (a study of studies) of media-bias research. Researcher David W. D’Alessio examined 99 studies of presidential-election reporting from 1948 to 2008. His conclusion? Left-leaning reporting was balanced by reporting more favorable to conservatives. A tie, in other words.

In closing, a word of advice: The next time you’re tempted to grumble about “the media” for some perceived trespass against The Truth, subject your grievance to the Five Ws we learned about back in journalism class. Who. What. When. Where. Why. Who said it or wrote it; where did they say it; and so on. (Admittedly, the “why” is the most difficult part of the equation.)

You’ll discover that your complaint is specific, not general. You’ll discover, too, that calling out “the media” makes about as much sense as calling out “people.” Some are fair, some aren’t. But they’re not all the same. It pays to know which is which.

Thanks,

Paul.
Posts: 34,481
Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 07:53 AM   #8
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bucs, Pats, Noles
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $70063
Quote:
Originally Posted by beer bacon View Post
The worst thing about modern media is that it seems like at least half the time they just act like stenographers. Instead of analyzing the factuality of certain claims or attacks made by politicians, they repeat the claims/attacks word-for-word, and then discuss their "impact."

Very little is done in the way of investigating the accuracy of the claims or attacks. It is not whether the claims are true or not, it is how does this make McCain look bad? How does this make Obama look good? Will *insert demographic here* respond to this?
That's called editorializing which involves opinion. That is not reporting news.
__________________

H a l l o w e d - S t a r r y - N i g h t
Posts: 103,887
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 07:56 AM   #9
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bucs, Pats, Noles
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $70063
I'd like to see the source with a link to that original post.

80% of the media self-identify with the left per surveys. They carry water for the state.
__________________

H a l l o w e d - S t a r r y - N i g h t

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 10-12-2016 at 11:32 AM..
Posts: 103,887
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 09:18 AM   #10
scho63 scho63 is offline
Politically Incorrect
 
scho63's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Casino cash: $20000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! View Post
This seems like a reasonable place to put this. I know most won't read it, and I know I'll probably catch a ration of shit about it. I usually don't post articles in full, but I figure that's the only way some of you might actually consider it.

This is not a political piece; it's a statement from someone "in the trenches" posted as an op-ed.
My comments after reading this:

1. A Harvard Study confirmed Liberal Media bias, so a very Liberal college is evening confirming what most of us already knew. The info by this so called "journalist" in the "news business" saying the media is balanced is 100% False!
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/fil...almedia_bw.pdf

2. The radio media and talk radio is MUCH more biased on the right and it's the reason Nancy Scumbag Obamacare Pusher Pelosi raised the issue of the "Fairness Doctrine" ONLY for radio.

3. The reason everyone is "lumping" all these so called journalists and news media people together is very simple: They are all no longer afraid to hide their biases and report fairly or impartially and in many cases carry the water for the Democrats. It is now much easier to see one large blob of the elite media both in print and TV that all think and act alike.
__________________
"The only difference between sex for free and sex for money is that sex for free costs you a WHOLE LOT more!" ~Redd Foxx~


2018 Adopt a Chief - Clark Hunt and Brett Veach
"The men who drafted Patrick Mahomes"


Posts: 18,944
scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.scho63 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 09:26 AM   #11
Fire Me Boy! Fire Me Boy! is offline
Cast Iron Jedi
 
Fire Me Boy!'s Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Casino cash: $0
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by scho63 View Post
My comments after reading this:

1. A Harvard Study confirmed Liberal Media bias, so a very Liberal college is evening confirming what most of us already knew. The info by this so called "journalist" in the "news business" saying the media is balanced is 100% False!
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/fil...almedia_bw.pdf
I'm sure anyone can find a dozen different studies that find different things. You reference a 2004 study. This guy referenced a 2012 study of the media-bias studies. Another researcher studied specifically presidential election reporting.
Posts: 34,481
Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fire Me Boy! is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 09:50 AM   #12
Sideburn Sideburn is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Casino cash: $25000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! View Post
This seems like a reasonable place to put this. I know most won't read it, and I know I'll probably catch a ration of shit about it. I usually don't post articles in full, but I figure that's the only way some of you might actually consider it.

This is not a political piece; it's a statement from someone "in the trenches" posted as an op-ed.
Thanks for this, and while I disagree with it, it does have some valid points. I agree that we lump everything in with "the media" as a giant catch all.

With that said, they have no one to blame but themselves. There is a reason that the public does not trust journalist. Here is but one reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

So sure, when we say "the media" has a liberal bias, we are in fact lumping many facets into one catch all. But as you can see from the Journolist link, they had no problem lumping themselves together to begin with.

Not only is the above a major problem, but frankly, the majority are just bad at their jobs. For most, it's not their job to editorialize a story, and yet, that is what we get. Everything is built around emotions now. Why? Because emotions and feelings are easy to manipulate. I want to know the facts of the story, not how the author feels about it, or what the author thinks it means. The how in who, what, when, why and how doesn't stand for How am I feeling about this.
Posts: 456
Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 09:53 AM   #13
fan4ever fan4ever is offline
Supporter
 
fan4ever's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Casino cash: $14489
Last night on the local news here in Phoenix, they were reporting that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in trouble for disobeying court orders and may be indicted. The reporter started off the story, and I'm paraphrasing, "There's go... news today that Sheriff Arpaio is likely to be indicted..." She almost sputtered out "good news today" but caught herself but it was totally obvious. My wife and I both looked at each other and laughed...and she's a biased media skeptic.
__________________
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Posts: 6,924
fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.fan4ever threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 10:29 AM   #14
stevieray stevieray is online now
old school
 
stevieray's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: on The Wall
Casino cash: $34950
...when you can hear the same buzzwords and phrases form fifteen different "anchors".....

ya, the "media" is on the take.

I don't want or need your personal opinion, just report.
Posts: 52,281
stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2016, 10:31 AM   #15
Sideburn Sideburn is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Casino cash: $25000
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray View Post
...when you can hear the same buzzwords and phrases form fifteen different "anchors".....

ya, the "media" is on the take.

I don't want or need your personal opinion, just report.
Yeah the videos with the news parroting the exact same story and phrasing of stories are always funny. Mindless robots reading a prompter. Maybe we should go after the evil bastard that controls the prompters.
Posts: 456
Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.Sideburn would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:46 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
Fort Worth Texas Process Servers
Covering Arlington, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie and surrounding communities.
Tarrant County, Texas and Johnson County, Texas.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.