Facebook Posts
I don't understand the either/or rhetoric from these reading specialists. Of course you don't want to subject a three year old to a rigorous sit-down curriculum. BAD IDEA. TERRIBLE IDEA. But to say...
**
“Can a child learn individual letters at 2½ or 3? Sure. But is it developmentally appropriate? Absolutely not,” said Susan Neuman, a professor of childhood and literacy education at New York University.
At age 3, she said, children learn language best through play and the back-and-forth with caregivers who talk, read and sing to them. Parents might read nursery rhymes, a powerful tool that teaches children rhymes they remember throughout their lives, she said. They might sing songs like the “Hokey Pokey” and “Itsy Bitsy Spider,” which get children ready to hear and recognize the sounds of our language.
**
Yes, but that should be a both/and! You read, you sing, you play, and in addition, as my mother wrote in THE WELL-TRAINED MIND:
**
As soon as your child begins to talk (which will be early if she’s immersed in language), teach her the alphabet. Sing the alphabet songwhenever you change her diaper (often). Stencil alphabet letters, both capital letters and lowercase letters, to the wall, or put up a chart. Read alphabet rhymes and alphabet books.
When she knows the names of the letters, tell her that each letter has asound, just as each animal makes a sound—“Pigs say oink”; “Dogs say woof ”; and “B says b, b, b as in baby.” Start with the sounds of the consonants(that’s everything except a, e, i, o, and u). Tell her that b is the soundat the beginning of bat, ball, and Ben; say, “T, t, tickle” and “M, m, mommy” and“C, c, cat.”
Then tell her that the vowels (a, e, i, o, u) are named A, E, I, O, and U. Sing,“Old McDonald had a farm, A, E, I, O, U.” Then teach her that each vowelhas a sound, just as each animal makes a sound—“A as in at,” “E as in egg,”“I as in igloo,” “O as in octopus,” and “U as in umbrella.” These are the shortsounds of the vowels, the only vowel sounds you should teach at first.
All ofthis is prereading.Prereading preparation works...If you create a language rich home, limit TV and videos, and then teach systematic phonics, you will produce readers.
**
Unless you're tormenting your toddler with flashcards (yeah, don't do that), teaching individual letters is 100% developmentally appropriate. And valuable prereading work. Also, they tend to like the challenge, as long as YOU are being relaxed about it.
(Maybe the whole Baby Einstein phenomenon is what this reading specialist is reacting to?)
Anyway, have a read.
www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-24/why-you-dont-need-to-teach-your-3-year-old-to-read
welltrainedmind.com/p/wtm-ee/
The Well-Trained Mind: Essential Edition - Well-Trained Mind
welltrainedmind.com
Is your child getting lost in the system, becoming bored, losing his or her natural eagerness to learn? If so, it may be time to take charge of your child’s education by doing it yourself. NEW to the Essential Edition! Specific resource recommendations have moved out of the text and into an online...2 hours ago
Susan Neuman and Maryanne Wolf are both well-respected researchers and their work is generally in line with the way you describe your mother’s advice. They do need to be concerned with folks(sometimes policymakers and others in schools) who do begin to torment toddlers with flash cards. Based on their work, I think they are concerned more with the Baby Einstein phenomenon you mentioned. “Science of Reading” can overdo phonics and be reductionist. I would recommend Maryanne Wolf’s book Reader, Come Home (2018). Readers of this Facebook page may resonate with that work.
Only comment? Subtitles on shows/content played a big role in how two of my children learned how to read. One taught himself, and he preferred whole language. He is learning phonics after the fact to help with spelling. We really need to stop this “XYZ is the only way children should learn how to read” and “this is age by which they should or else”. 🤷🏼♀️
I think they are responding to the early education of toddlers. How soon can I get my kid to read? Idea. Instead of simply doing life. That is an a, apple starts with a.
Singing sounds great for auditory learners. What about visual learners? A learning style may never be permanently fixed or determined, so why not teach toddlers the same way we do teach older kids? Offer multiple approaches for various learning styles. Developmentally appropriate doesn't mean, to me, that the child is ready for print; it means how much they can process of something for their age/level/ability before frustration.
What’s the hurry?
Check out this article, Lori Hudson Murphy. It’s good stuff and right up your Prek alley. 👍👍😊
There is a FB ad selling a new reading product that is what I suspect this was written in response to. In the marketing of the product the parent explains that the purpose of having your child learn to read early is so that the schools can’t hold the kid back and can move forward. The regular pace of K-2 grades for smart and well-prepared kids is quite slow, so the theory is that if your kid enters school knowing how to read you can set them up for learning other stuff. Nationally, kids attending public schools with the highest socioeconomic indicators are operating 2 grades ahead of their peers. Parents in the know understand that some kids pick up reading quite easily, and those kids are provided all sorts of self-esteem advantages from that early victory. It’s a snowball effect or Matthew effect as good readers just become better over time and a small initial advantage CAN turn into real academic differences later. But what I find weird about American culture is how you don’t see many think pieces about teaching your kid to swim at 6months or ride two-wheel bikes at age 2 instead of tricycles, or learning how to play sports. The only area that seems to be criticized is when families try to support early academic preparation and I find that super odd. And it’s also odd to talk about countries with very simple and phonetic languages which may not start formal schooling until late while neglecting to mention the very rich early childhood environments they also support and btw many of the kids end up entering their schooling already reading.
It was always innate within me to teach my children throughout life. When they had a question, I answered. We sang songs. We read books. We encouraged learning through all different styles. I have six kids. One didn’t read until she was 8. One read at 3. One didn’t talk until 2.5. Two of them were speaking simple sentences at 15 months. It was honestly a mystery to me how people didn’t parent this way. I couldn’t help but just be led by my children’s interest and zest for life.
I think part of the problem is painting all children with the same brush. The thing people forget about whole language, for example, is that it actually DOES work for some kids. But public education fails millions of children for whom it doesn't work if it skips phonics. Individual letters may be tough for some toddlers, and others may relish the challenge and learn to read early. There are few things that are universally "developmentally inappropriate" because each child is unique. And while we're on the subject, both of my kids were immersed in the same language-rich environment and one of them is a late talker for reasons unknown. So that "will" in the Jesse Bauer quote should be a "may." (I'm also baffled by the expert in the article mentioning Denmark and Finland because they are completely different countries with different cultures, educational norms, and languages.)
My work is teaching dyslexic kids to read. Ironically, my oldest was reading at 3 by happenstance not my doing. My second kid has dyslexia and started my journey into teaching reading. I have done this work for 15 years, therefore I feel pretty qualified to weigh in. Before true reading can happen, a child must develop phonemic awareness. This is best done by rhyming and reading to a child. Also, there are physical activities, like playing patty cake, which help reading by developing neural pathways between brain hemispheres by crossing the midline. So much early play inherently develops early reading skills. Skipping those activities and making a 3 year old use flashcards risks making them dislike reading and learning. Reading to your kid and keeping them off screens is the best way to get them reading.
Yeah, both my kids, including my dyslexic kid, knew upper and lower case letters and principal sounds by 18 months old. It was pretty effortless and easy and didn’t require any drilling or anything. I’ve taught hundreds of 2 and 3 year olds, and learning to recognize letters and sounds is easy and developmentally appropriate, honestly. I hesitate to even call it teaching any more than any other conversation.
I couldn’t stop my child from learning letters!
I was a reading specialist with a Master's in Reading Education. I had taught many kids to read.So my own child knew the alphabet and letter sounds by 3. However, he had no interest in reading stories until 10. He listened to thousands of picture books though, his vocabulary is marvelous, and he still prefers audio books now though he's read dozens of printed chapter books. Sometimes they don't want to read until they are ready. I also had copies of the Watergate Institute books and DVDs for phonics that are still wonderful. Your child can watch the Rusty and Rosey phonics videos on YouTube.
Three thoughts about this lively take on Scholastic book fairs.
1) Do you have memories of school-based Scholastic book fairs? As a home schooled student, I remember a version of this where we got to circle all of the books we wanted and how incredibly EXCITING that was. But that would be different from the school-based version. Please share!
2) The author has an excellent point: this was always a commercial enterprise, so let's not surround the past manifestations of the commercial enterprise with rosy nostalgia.
3) Isn't *choice* the real intoxicant here? As a young reader, I delighted in the opportunity to pick exactly what I wanted, without anyone criticizing or deep-sixing my preferences. This makes me reflect on my current reading choices. For example, I felt a little apologetic about including a Dick Francis title on my last reading roundup. He's not a critical darling, after all, and I worried that I'd be judged. But I really like reading Dick Francis. Wasn't one of the Scholastic Book Fair appeals that anything in the catalog was fair game, even if it was...lowbrow?
As always, I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Do please read the whole piece (linked) if you can.
**
Oh, Scholastic Book Fair. If you made your way through a public school in North America anytime during the past half-century, you should recall that shiny catalog. That sudden, circus-like presence in the school library.
On Monday, the critic Michelle Cyca argued as much in an evocative piece for The Walrus. Cyca remembered the fair, with its order forms and Animorphs box sets, as a key Millennial touchstone. But when her young daughter brought a current catalog home, sorrow usurped nostalgia.
Cyca was distressed to note that many of today’s fair offerings are mere “extensions of toy or TV franchises,” like Lego, Pokémon, or Paw Patrol. What’s worse, these offerings seem “to be marketing themselves not on the merits of imaginative storytelling but on their proximity to more stimulating entertainments.”
...In addition to fanning a love of reading, the fair has always claimed a fiscal purpose. In North America, it offers a supplemental funding pipeline for under-resourced schools. A Scholastic rep told Fox 13 that book fairs have helped raise more than $2 billion for American schools in the last decade alone.
Hard yums to yuck, in this economy. Even if the quality in the stacks has been compromised. But to Cyca, that earlier fair was most important for its purity.
“The order form elicited a buzz of permissible, wholesome consumerism,” she wrote, of the famous catalog. “[A]nd I loved the freedom of penciling in my choices after careful deliberation: Animorphs, Scott O’Dell novels, R.L. Stine series that would give me nightmares for weeks.”
Like a Proustian madeleine, I remember those Animorphs. But as another piece of IP that spawned its own TV drama, I’m inclined to question my instinct to distinguish K.A. Applegate’s series from the Paw Patrol or Minecraft novels—at least on the object level....
When it comes to the thing of the Scholastic Book Fair, I’m personally still on the fence. There’s good, there’s schlock, there’s capitalism. Maybe it was always the exact same fraught frenzy. And it’s just us readers who are finally growing up.
**
lithub.com/have-they-ruined-our-beloved-scholastic-book-fair/
1 day ago
![Three thoughts about this lively take on Scholastic book fairs.
1) Do you have memories of school-based Scholastic book fairs? As a home schooled student, I remember a version of this where we got to circle all of the books we wanted and how incredibly EXCITING that was. But that would be different from the school-based version. Please share!
2) The author has an excellent point: this was always a commercial enterprise, so lets not surround the past manifestations of the commercial enterprise with rosy nostalgia.
3) Isnt *choice* the real intoxicant here? As a young reader, I delighted in the opportunity to pick exactly what I wanted, without anyone criticizing or deep-sixing my preferences. This makes me reflect on my current reading choices. For example, I felt a little apologetic about including a Dick Francis title on my last reading roundup. Hes not a critical darling, after all, and I worried that Id be judged. But I really like reading Dick Francis. Wasnt one of the Scholastic Book Fair appeals that anything in the catalog was fair game, even if it was...lowbrow?
As always, Im interested to hear your thoughts. Do please read the whole piece (linked) if you can.
**
Oh, Scholastic Book Fair. If you made your way through a public school in North America anytime during the past half-century, you should recall that shiny catalog. That sudden, circus-like presence in the school library.
On Monday, the critic Michelle Cyca argued as much in an evocative piece for The Walrus. Cyca remembered the fair, with its order forms and Animorphs box sets, as a key Millennial touchstone. But when her young daughter brought a current catalog home, sorrow usurped nostalgia.
Cyca was distressed to note that many of today’s fair offerings are mere “extensions of toy or TV franchises,” like Lego, Pokémon, or Paw Patrol. What’s worse, these offerings seem “to be marketing themselves not on the merits of imaginative storytelling but on their proximity to more stimulating entertainments.”
...In addition to fanning a love of reading, the fair has always claimed a fiscal purpose. In North America, it offers a supplemental funding pipeline for under-resourced schools. A Scholastic rep told Fox 13 that book fairs have helped raise more than $2 billion for American schools in the last decade alone.
Hard yums to yuck, in this economy. Even if the quality in the stacks has been compromised. But to Cyca, that earlier fair was most important for its purity.
“The order form elicited a buzz of permissible, wholesome consumerism,” she wrote, of the famous catalog. “[A]nd I loved the freedom of penciling in my choices after careful deliberation: Animorphs, Scott O’Dell novels, R.L. Stine series that would give me nightmares for weeks.”
Like a Proustian madeleine, I remember those Animorphs. But as another piece of IP that spawned its own TV drama, I’m inclined to question my instinct to distinguish K.A. Applegate’s series from the Paw Patrol or Minecraft novels—at least on the object level....
When it comes to the thing of the Scholastic Book Fair, I’m personally still on the fence. There’s good, there’s schlock, there’s capitalism. Maybe it was always the exact same fraught frenzy. And it’s just us readers who are finally growing up.
**
https://lithub.com/have-they-ruined-our-beloved-scholastic-book-fair/](https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/825292655_1630312481791725_5669242508626507907_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p720x720_tt6&_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=Q2V3e1p-ZJcQ7kNvwHESvZo&_nc_oc=AdpMJV82nG5lH5Bo9-Tu21wolQg_RU1TVFgQURctRXLLJJ8iDbJraXTirmW1PPzoxFI&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&edm=AKIiGfEEAAAA&_nc_gid=rrolbghfk14FO6ahSBvtog&_nc_tpa=Q5bMBQJUnB9IiLF0gpFupGBO4xfUi_vWfGQ1bdt6FtnSkZrERXwjNu1--GWMhSk-N1Zm01QPsYCCRQ0bnA&oh=00_AQL9SDmMhggCC-HlgYl5Qoe0CtCtuga9vsJ4XgpBJYBM5g&oe=6ABF40BD)
Honestly, all I remember about the Scholastic book fairs in school were all the books I wanted but never got. There was the issue of money, after all. It was like being brought into the room where a banquet was being served to everyone you knew, and being asked to sit quietly in a corner and just watch.
In the late '70s through mid-'80s, this fair was all about "The Guinness Book of World Records." I bought more than that book, but it was the main draw for me and my friends. Were there stories aimed at kids long before there was any such thing as YA fiction? Yes, although the only fiction book I can remember buying at the fair was "How to Eat Fried Worms." Maybe "A Wrinkle in Time" too? Beyond the fair, I remember my mom buying books for us (infrequently) from Toys 'R Us. (Yes, the chain sold books - "Hardy Boys" and "Bobbsey Twins" before I "graduated" to the finer things, like "Choose Your Own Adventure.")
It was always a mixed bag. I was introduced to the Narnia books in Scholastic paperback editions (which I still have) as well as some other really great children's literature. Plus a lot of Garfield comic strip collections. But the commercial junk was always present as well.
I literally felt better about my life (and my Goodreads) when I read your last book roundup! I teach great books, I love classics and other thoughtful works, and I mostly avoid “twaddle,” but I write genre fiction and sometimes I just enjoy a fun read. If SWB does too maybe I’m not a heathen 😅😂
I don't remember fairs in the 70s, but we got the order forms. Big day when the books came in! When we began homeschooling I set up an account so we could get the catalogs and order.
The books were mixed. I always found it confusing because there was a public library with that sort of book for free. There was a school library with that sort of stuff for free. There were multiple bookstores with these books for the same price. The draw was to buy for the school fundraiser aspect which is actually pretty controversial morally. I remember reading in some states, fundraising money had to be distributed evenly across school in a district or the county or possibly the state because poorer districts could just defund the public schools through lowering taxes and make up the difference through fundraisers. The good of allowing children to choose their own books can happen in many ways. I don’t imagine this fundraiser as being very effective. I also don’t like the financial disparities of students being on display like the fairs. It seems to fall short in every category while being a commercial company in schools.
It has always been that way. You were just too young to notice when you were a kid.
I deeply loved the book fair in school and enjoyed volunteering when my daughter was in elementary school as well. Of course, there is the merch overload, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the offerings expanded to included a wider range of authors and people of color on the covers in recent years. My daughter did go alone in Kindergarten and bought a princess book that she read the entirety of in the backseat on the way home from school. She was disappointed because it was short and disappointing. We had an interesting conversation about making thoughtful choices for our reading that she still remembers. So yes, a "waste" of that money, but she learned the experience in a way she would not have if I was with her.
I was a child in the 80s and loved the Scholastic Book Fairs! I was a teacher, then a mom, so I’ve continued to have access to them, and I don’t really think the content has objectively changed all that much. The packs of Newbery books are still there, and some of the new books coming out are just as high quality as the new books we remember from when we were kids. They sold a LOT of merch in the 80s, too, and there were a lot of licensed or commercial fiction then. Books that are forgettable are just that; we remember the quality, and the classics become classics because they’re the good ones, not because that’s all that was being written.
As a teacher and parent, I think the selection has narrowed over the last 15 years. It's probably a better math lesson, figuring out sales tax, than a promotion of reading. But kids love having some spending power, and it's not like most of them get to walk down to the corner store by themselves to buy candy anymore.
Yes, it was always mixed. There were definitely books I wasn't allowed from that catalog and my mom was very against TV tie-in products so it was probably those.
I didn't have any money for the catalogue or for the Scholastic Book Fair as we were pretty poor growing up, I wish there was a way for all students to be included in the excitement. My children are in public school now and they don't visit the Book Fair during the school day, it is twice a year during Parent Teacher Conferences. I have fun letting my kids pick out a book or two. I'm a children's librarian so it is rare we purchase books as Mum is back and forth from the library almost daily and can put anything they want on hold to be sent to my work.
As a kid I loved the book fair and always volunteered when my oldest was in school. My mom used to get Chinaberry catalogs and I absolutely loved getting those in and picking out books. I think reading, like life, needs a balance. It’s ok to read just for entertainment. To me that just fosters a love of the written word.
As a homeschooled child, if you replace the scholastic catalog with the BJU catalog, I get the excitement.
Having gone to parochial school, we didn’t have book fairs. In our local homeschool group, we did have scholastic catalogs. My kids enjoyed picking out their books and usually chose decent quality for the most part. Since one of my kids was receiving services at the local school, I would walk through their book fairs and purchase things for them. Even 25 years ago, there was so much junk in addition to the books. They ended up switching to a local independent bookstore as a vendor for their book fairs, with much better quality. But that also meant higher price points. So they would use their free book benefit so help get books for the lower income kids.
I think the proportion of stuffies, fuzzy/cloth covered journals, stationary, and toys seems to have really increased at the book fairs AND within bookstores.
My husband and I are both 58 and do not remember having Scholastic Book Fairs in school and we went to school in different states. We did order from the flyers and I loved that. I liked reading the summaries and selecting books. I think there was a mix of junk reading and more quality works. As a teacher and parent I interacted with the Fairs. Eh. A lot of junk. I do have a lot of Big Books that I purchased with Scholastic points as a teacher and I love using them for read alouds.
I want to weigh in on our current hostilities.
No, not the American military against Iran: the White House against the American media.
In case you’ve been under a rock, President Trump has barred CNN, MS NOW (previously MSNBC), and Politico from their long-standing place in the White House television press pool (a system that’s been in place since the early 1940s), because he disagrees with their coverage of his administration.
A First Amendment lawsuit is pending, so we’ll see how this plays out.
In the meantime, let me offer my small-potatoes take on the best way to respond to negative public coverage/comments/criticism.
I am not the president of the United States. (Yet.)
(THAT was a joke)
But I’m also no stranger to public, often stinging, often negative, and in my view, often inaccurate coverage. My first book came out in 1996. Since then, I’ve been called a fundamentalist, a communist, a socialist, a right-wing fanatic, a fake historian with a religious agenda, a radical feminist, a Christian nutcase, and a few other things that I can’t be bothered to resurrect at this late date.
There are three ways that someone with a public profile can respond to negative coverage from journalists, reviewers, news sites, and random loudmouths on social media sites.
First, and probably the right choice 90% of the time, you can ignore it and carry on with your work. That’s primarily what we’re called to do: Our work. if you carry on with what you’re meant to be doing, and if that work is meaningful, the negative and positives will shake themselves out. It’s difficult to ignore the negatives. Ignoring them is, generally speaking, the only way to keep doing your meaningful work. Otherwise, you get caught in a spiralling reaction system and the work goes away because all of your energy is being spent on the reactions.
Second, you can push back privately. Sometimes this is a necessary correction. A couple of years ago, a well-known journalist writing for a major evangelical Christian publication put out an opinion piece in which he described me as a “right wing culture warrior.” I don’t do culture wars, and, given the platform, I didn’t feel like I could ignore that. I contacted him, sent him the specific reasons why I felt this was an unfair characterization, and asked him to reconsider. He sent me back a quite snotty response (“mansplaining” comes to mind) which began with all of his academic qualifications. (I also have some of those.) I responded, politely, that none of his qualifications made the characterization accurate, but that if he and his organization chose to stand behind the phrase, I would be happy to publish my own thoughts on why it was 100% wrong.
The piece disappeared the next day. I don’t know who made that decision, but clearly someone with more authority than the journalist had a look at the essay and recognized the problem.
Third, you can object publicly—by providing actual information showing why the assertions made in the coverage are incorrect. When you’re dealing with opinion pieces, this is often not easy to do. At that point, you should revert to the first strategy.
You know what doesn’t generally work?
Yelling that everyone who criticizes you is unfair and biased and refusing to speak to them. Name calling instead of offering substantive rebuttals. Going on the offensive and shutting down access. Putting all your energies into the coverage instead of into your job.
And that’s just from me, the private citizen.
www.cbsnews.com/news/presidential-tv-pool-suspended-trump-ban-cnn/
www.nytimes.com/2026/09/21/opinion/trump-journalists-ban-white-house.html?unlocked_article_code=1...
Opinion | Trump Is Attacking Press Freedom and Disregarding the Law. Again. (Gift Article)
www.nytimes.com
The new ban continues Mr. Trump’s attempt to prevent the free flow of information in American society.5 days ago
I would vote for you.
Excellent points! Both sides of the aisle should be concerned about the implications of this and the first amendment!
Yeah I’ve had my share of negative press too but your words are wise here… sometimes just keep moving and working.
Fourth option: remove privileged access to those who abuse the opportunity to be physically on the White House grounds, and allow others who won't abuse that privilege the opportunity. Nobody's right to publish what they want has been taken away. What has been taken away is the presumption that they can do so from within the White House. That's a privilege that carries a responsibility. It is not a right. The SCOTUS has ruled that it is not a right previously.
I knew there was a reason that the one time I purchased a homeschool curriculum book of yours for our children, I did not like it. Made it through two chapters before burning it.
Right to the point as usual. Wonderful. All anyone ever asks is proof of facts and no trying to to hide the truth with false accusations!
Well said!
Thank you for taking the time for this. As always, I’m grateful to add your thoughts to what’s circulating in my head - but especially on topics that are unnecessarily framed as oppositional in nature. Besides, as Nicole has always said, “The more you know, the better the jokes.”
THIS. I mean, all of it, but especially the part about objecting publicly with facts. Shrieking that the coverage is false doesn't make it so. If the truth is on your side, shout THAT from the rooftops, not ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated accusations of falsehoods. Also, for what it's worth, when I homeschooled my kids, they learned about John Peter Zenger.
It’s inconceivable what is happening!!! 🤯 Thank you sharing your thoughts!!
I would hope someone at some point will discuss the difference between “rights” and “privilege”. It is amazing how varied a story can be told by two different people exposed to the same information at the same time. Then, these same people, come out of their press seat, and write two diametrically opposed stories using an answer given at a press conference, which was televised and aired to the public. Those who blatantly lie or twist an answer so maliciously shouldn’t have a “right” to take up space in the press room. They can hear the press conference and report from the live feed. Some of those reporters reprimanded are verbally contentious, and redirect questions which downright attack the current President and the current government. I say their misbehavior is a matter of national security, whether or not those reporters actively and openly own their nefarious practices. They are quia distraction, when trying to get the facts of the story. It seems they are only there to throw daggers and get kudos from their network producers. Being a reporter and disseminating truth is a huge responsibility, and should be taken seriously. Those who are there to throw gotcha questions should be looked upon as the unserious jokesters they portend. As it is now, they are collecting feathers in their caps and attaboys for trying to trip up the news cycle, trying to create news. They are just getting points from their own networks, but their behavior is not at all demonstrating a serious investigative journalist.
Obama did the same thing to Fox News in 2009. THE VERY SAME THING. Did that bother you? Or do you even remember it?
Often the media is completely wrong. Even with local personal interest kind of stories. I can't stand any of the outlets. I wish there was something we could listen to and get middle of the road, reasonable news.
Hi! 📚 We’re currently putting together our September–November Author Showcase and would love to consider featuring your work with our reading community. If you’re interested, feel free to DM us, and we’ll be happy to share the details. We’d love to connect!
