Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Hostile Media Effects

Here are two things that, when taken together, cry out for explanation. Over the last five decades, study after study of media bias has found little or no evidence of systematic bias in either direction1, and a meta-analysis of bias studies over 6 decades, using several different measures of bias, found no bias in newspaper reporting, and only a miniscule, inconsequential right-wing bias in magazines, and left-wing bias on television2. Yet, while in 1988, only 12% of the public believed the media to be systematically biased3, that percentage has grown steadily over the last two decades, with 62% of Americans believing the media to be biased in 20054. And in almost every case, the perceived bias is towards the opposition. How is it that, over the same period in which studies have consistently shown a lack of media bias5, more and more people have come to believe that it exists, and that it favors their opponents' viewpoints? My reaction to the belief in media bias has usually been to assume that perception of bias was a result of people holding extreme views, and that as a result, anything to the right or the left of them, even if it's firmly in the center, will be perceived as bias. While this explanation might have worked in 1998, when only a few Americans believed the media to be biased, it doesn't work when the majority holds that belief. So, I had to look deeper to find an explanation.

If people tended to believe that the media was biased in favor of their own views, it would be easy to explain. There is an extensive literature on "assimilation bias," or the tendency to perceive neutral information as favoring one's own views. Since most perceptions of media bias are in the opposite direction, however, this explanation won't work. In fact, in one study, participants were presented with the exact same information either in the form of a journalist's report or a student's essay6. When reading the context of a journalist's report, participants perceived the information to be biased in favor of the opposition, but when reading the same information in the context of a student's essay, they tended to see it as neutral or as supporting their own position (assimilation bias). So there must be something about the context of mass media that elicits the perception of bias that is inconsistent with the way in which we usually interpret information. And that means it's not going to be easy to find an explanation. But many researchers have been trying, and I'm going to try to summarize some of what they've found.

Serious psychological study of perceived media bias began in the mid-1980s with studies by Vallone, Ross, and Lepper7, and by Perloff8. In both studies, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian participants were presented with television news coverage of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and subsequent fighting. The pro-Israeli participants believed that the coverage was biased in favor of the Palestinians, and that it would make neutral observers feel less favorable towards their side, while the pro-Palestinians were convinced the coverage was biased in favor of the Israeli side, and that it would hurt their image in the eyes of neutral observers. This is despite the fact that when neutral observers did view the coverage, in Perloff's study, they failed to perceive any bias, and their opinions of the two sides stayed the same. Vallone et al. termed this the "Hostile Media Phenomenon," or "Hostile Media Effect" (HME from here on out). After the publication of these two studies, research on the HME took off.

Both the Vallone et al. and Perloff studies looked at one specific issue, and used as participants people who had strong opinions about that issue. Subsequent research has shown that even those who have only a moderate involvement in a particular issue will tend to show the HME, though at a lower rate, and that both strong and moderate partisans will show the HME for general (e.g., liberal vs. conservative) viewpoints in addition to specific issues9. As is often the case, though, for the first decade or so after the initial finding of the HME, researchers tended to focus merely on demonstrating that it exists in a particular domain, rather than trying to figure out why it exists. And research on the mechanisms and factors involved still hasn't gotten very far. But the literature does provide some hints.

First off, the nature of the information, and its presentation, seem to be important. Obviously, any political issue is game, but it appears that political issues that are presented as conflicts (e.g., between ethnicities, between social classes, etc.) are particularly prone to elicit the HME10. On top of this, there are clear social and individual factors involved. In an analysis of data from a nationwide survey, Eveland and Shah11 found that the following factors were associated with HME:
  • Gender: Males are slightly more likely to perceive a hostile media bias than females.
  • Income: as income goes up, perception of hostile media bias goes down.
  • Political party: Republicans are much more likely to perceive a hostile media bias than Democrats.
  • Strength of identification with a party: Strong partisans are somewhat more likely to perceive a hostile media bias than moderates.
  • Political involvement: the more involved you are in politics, the more likely you are to perceive hostile media bias.
  • What Eveland and Shah call "Safe Discussions": The more time you spend talking about politics with people who share your views, the more likely you are to perceive hostile media bias.
They also found an interaction between political party and "safe discussions," such that the more "safe discussions" Republicans had, the more likely they were to perceive bias, while the number of "safe discussions" Democrats had did not affect the probability that they would perceive bias. They argue that this interaction is likely due to the fact that "liberal bias" is such a common Republican talking point that it's likely to come up fairly frequently in discussions between Republicans. Interestingly, a couple variables that you might have thought would be associated with HME were not. Education showed a small, indirect relationship (i.e., as education went up, HME went down), it did not approach statistical significance. I might have predicted that as education went up, HME would go down. And since "safe discussions" make HME go up, it would be natural to predict that "dangerous discussions," that is, discussions with people who disagree with you, would make it go down. But they found only a small, non-significant relationship between the two.

Of course, the question that interests me is, what cognitive (and affective) mechanisms are involved in the HME? The research on this question is incredibly muddled, so I'm not going to talk about it in any detail. Suffice it to say that for every cognitive mechanism hypothesized to be involved, there's a paper presenting data that indicates it's not. I suspect that motivated reasoning is involved, though no direct evidence for this currently exists. If it is involved, it would mean that people are probably selectively retrieving memories of media coverage when they're reasoning about media bias, and that their interpretation of specific instances is biased as well12. This doesn't explain why the HME seems to be specific to the media and, as in the Gunther and Schmitt paper cited above (footnote 6), disappears when the same information is placed in another context. This is probably a result of the beliefs about the media that trigger motivated reasoning in the first place, and these beliefs are probably the result of complex socio-cultural factors. In addition, Gunther and Schmitt argue that their data may indicate the influence of the "perceived reach of the information." This may be true, and would explain why people are quick to claim that the coverage will hurt their side's image in the view of others, but it says little about the mechanisms involved in this reasoning, or even why the "perceived reach" has an effect at all. I imagine that near future research will explore people's beliefs about the media bias, and how those who exhibit the HME reason about information presented by mass media, more thoroughly, and perhaps we'll soon have an answer to the mechanism questions. Until then, we'll have to be satisfied with what the literature has told us: lower middle class, strongly partisan Republicans who spend a lot of time hanging out with other Republicans probably think there's a liberal bias in the media. Duh!

Let me end with a note on what inspired this post. First, there's that dizzingly surreal show on Fox News on Sunday evenings (I forget which one it is), during which a panel of mainstream media journalists, on a mainstream media TV network, talk about how biased the mainstream media is. Then there's the comments section of this post at The Volokh Conspiracy, in which the "liberal media" meme is tossed about with abandon. You won't find anything you haven't already seen, there, but the two combined made me want to talk about the HME. I don't think posting about it will change anyone's mind, really, as responses by those who believe the media to be biased to the research showing that it isn't are generally the same. Most of the time, the response I hear is something like this: "I don't care what the research says, because all I have to do is turn on the TV to see the bias with my own eyes." Others make at least a feeble effort to criticize the research, usually by saying the research itself must be biased, claiming that most people employed by mainstream media outlets are registered Democrats (a fact that might lead you to predict bias, but which is not itself an indication of bias), or citing the fatally flawed Groseclose and Milyo study linked in footnote five. But none of that speaks to the fact that over a period of more than 40 years, the Groseclose and Milyo study is the only major one to find systematic bias in the mainstream media, or to the empirical research on HME, in which people clearly perceive bias even when balance has been purposefuly included in the stimuli, and perceive it only when it's in the context of media coverage.

Of course, even when I'm not frustrated with "biased media" nonsense in blog comments and on Fox News, I still find the HME interesting, and empirical research on it important. I'm interested in it, and motivated reasoning in general, because I wonder about the role of schematic processes. But the research is also important because, more and more, the belief in media bias is having serious affects on our political process, and the media itself. The media, responding to claims of bias, seems to be taking extra pains to avoid looking biased by giving voice to opinions that have no real factual merit as contrasts to facts and opinions that are concentrated on one side of the political spectrum (e.g., in the evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate). Politicians, particularly on the political right, take advantage of the increasing distrust of a media perceived as biased, by blaming failures on the media, and dismissing negative claims those in the media make about them or their policies. So discovering, and countering, the processes and mechanisms involved in the HME will have very real practical implications.


1E.g., Woodard, J.D. (1994). Coverage of elections on evening television news shows: 1972-1992. In A.H. Miller & B.E. Gronbeck (Eds.), Presidential Campaigns and American Self Images. Boulder, CO: Westview; Mantler, G., & Whiteman, D. (1995). Attention to candidates and issues in newspaper coverage of 1992 presidential campaign. Newspaper Research Journal, 169(3), 14-28; Domke, D., Fan, D.P, Fibison, M., Shah, D.V., Smith,S.S., & Watts, M.D. (1997). News media, candidates and issues, and public opinion in the 1996 presidential campaign. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 718-737; Shah, D.V., Watts, M.D., Domke, D., Fan, D.P., & Fibison, M. (1999). News coverage, economic cues, and the public's presidential preferences: 1984-1995. Journal of Politics, 61, 914-943; Waldman, P., & Devitt, J. (1998). Newspaper photographs and the 1996 presidential election: The question of bias. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 302-311.
2D'Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133-156.
3Eveland, W.P., Shah, D.V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101-117.
4See the Gallup Poll detailed here.
5I ignore this study by Groseclose and Milyo for the obvious reason that its methodology is not only worthless, but downright nonsensical.
6Gunther, A.C., Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. The Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55.
7Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
8Perloff, R.M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
9E.g., Dalton R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 111-26.
10Price, V. (1989). Social identification and public opinion: Effects of communicating group conflict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 197-224.
11Eveland Jr., W. P., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101-117.
12Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31(6), 623-641.

33 comments:

Matt McIntosh said...

Good post on a subject that interests me too. Media outlets do have biases, though: they have a sensationalist and ignorant bias. This tends to be a much better predictor of media behaviour than a particular political leaning: nearly every story of average length about some technical subject will commit at least one factual howler and fail to put the subject matter into an adequate wider context. This heuristic works pretty reliably, I think.

Chris said...

Yeah, I'd never defend the quality of the popular press. It sucks on pretty much any topic, especially those that involve some sort of specialized knowledge, like the sciences or economics. The problem, as you indicate, is that newspapers, tv stations/networks, magazines, and radio stations are all businesses, and their ultimate goal is to get advertisers, not to report the news well. That means getting better ratings/readerships. So it's in their interest to sensationalize things, and it's not in their interest to display open bias against at least half of their potential audience.

I think Fox News is interesting, in the discussion of HME, because its popularity seems to depend on it. Whether you consider Fox News to be biased or "fair and balanced," its biggest selling point is that it is not biased like the rest of the networks. The HME has created an economic niche, and Fox News has filled it.

Todd said...

Another great blog. I think your intuition about the processes underlying the HME is probably correct (i.e., beliefs about the media itself trigger some form of motivated reasoning/retrieval). One important piece evidence supporting this argument (that needs greater emphasis) is that the HME seems to occur for individuals that are least attentive to the media itself (see Table 4, Dalton et al., 1998). This finding suggests that some form of theorizing about the media must be taking place among low attentive individuals, since it cannot be related to the actual content of the media. Just a thought...

Clark Goble said...

An easy explanation is that the media is superficial and there are now ways to discover what the media misses. Since you pay attention to what is in your views that is missed or misreported and not other views you find this as media bias. "Liberals" do the same thing now whereas way back in the early days of talk radio is was primarily a conservative thing. (Although one could argue that this charge was a constant theme of one element of the left going back at least to the counter-culture movement in the 60's)

My suspicion is that while "media bias" is a big conservative talking point, it's been played up among Democrats enough of late that we'll see them catching up.

Clark Goble said...

Just to add - I think that the charge that all this ought be considered media political bias is nonsense. If there is a political bias in US politics it is that the media here completely neglect foreign views and portrays everything in terms of a dominant Democratic vs. Republican dichotomy. The bias is superficiality rather than political bias (IMO). Although that has hurt our media tremendously.

Chris said...

Clark, I agree with you on both points. In fact, in every HME study looking at Republicans and Democrats, they do find Democrats who believe that the media is biased towards conservatives, but in smaller numbers. This is likely due simply to the fact that, for now, the "liberal bias" meme is larger than the "conservative bias" one. But after the events of the last few years (e.g., the lack of WMD in Iraq), I've seen that changing.

Chris said...

Todd, I've read Dalton et al., but I hadn't remembered that finding. I'm going to go back through the literature again (this post was written in haste, if you couldn't tell), and see if I can come up with a clearer picture on cognitive mechanisms. I have some ideas about schematic processes, but I'd like to have a firmer knowledge of exactly what has been shown so far.

Anonymous said...

I was interestted to find that my first reaction to your piece was a defensive one. Not surprising, since I perceive a fair amount of bias in the media.

I found myself wondering how sensitive the research is to various kinds of bias. For example, my (relatively conservative) local paper put a routine story about a lost dog on page 1A and, on the same day, a story about a group of grandmothers who were arrested in an anti-war protest on page 7B.
Neither story would show any bias when analyzed individually.

I notice things like this all the time and I suspect that Clark Groble has hit the nail on the head with his suggestion that I'm selectively noticing missing, misreported, or misplaced news that supports my biases.

Chris said...

Bob, exactly. When I say that I think motivated cognition is involved, what I mean, in essence, is that prior beliefs bias our perception, memory retrieval, and perhaps categorization of instances.

Anonymous said...

Gunther and Schmitt argue that their data may indicate the influence of the "perceived reach of the information."

I think you are right to stress prior beliefs, but I had the same intuition as Gunther and Schmitt as I was reading your post, even before reaching this sentence, though I'm not sure I can articulate why...you don't seem to buy it though.

I guess I'm wondering if people attend to information differently when that information is being cast to a large audience, even in a non-media context. Something about individual versus group context?...imagine, for example, that one of your students describes a debate you're having with another academic in an essay. Then imagine they are describing the debate in a speech to a large audience. Would you ("you" meaning anyone) listen differently? This is just an intuition though...do you know of any work related to this question?

Chris said...

Heather, it's not that I don't buy it. I'm just not sure why that is. For all I know, there may be a large body of research on how we react to messages that are widely broadcast vs. messages that are narrowly broadcast. I'd be interested to find literature that might suggest reasons for hostile vs. assimilation biases in the two cases, as well. I don't know of any, though. If I find some, I'll let you know. And maybe someone reading this knows of some, and can let us both know.

Heo said...

Bah, this post is proof of your liberal bias!

Jason said...

I wonder why you've conveniently narrowed the definition of "bias" to the superficial political terms of "left" and "right"... perhaps to gloss over the fact that the mass media genuinely (and unabashedly) are biased?

Do you think a television news program would let me run a commercial convincing people to turn off their televisions? What if I wanted to run a commercial promoting "Buy Nothing Day"? Of course these kinds of commercials would never air, regardless of whether the news station was neutral, or leaned left or right.

That's because the media are pro-business. If this isn't a bias, I don't know what is. Especially when you consider how intertwined business and politics are. The fact that big business influences both the left and the right makes the mass media appear politically neutral; but the fact that they refuse to take anti-corporate stances reveals them to be anything but.

Anonymous said...

I'm aware that your main interest in this subject is about the cognitive mechanisms that might underlie HME. However, any theory you might offer will be woefully inadequate if it attempts an explanation based on the reserach about HME that you have cited. Several of the other commentators seem to have noticed this, particularly J.Alden. That there is mainstream media bias may be obscured if you are mis-identifying the axis on which the bias lies. As others have noted, the research you cite seems to explore bias based on a false dichotomy, i.e., Democrat vs. Republican, or 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'.
I'm surprised that no one has cited Herman and Chomsky's classic work in this field "Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media". In this work the authors present the 'propaganda model' to explain how the information, provided by mainstream media, is filtered before it is disseminated. This is surely one of the most empirically well supported theses in the social sciences. If the propaganda model is correct, and i'd be interested to hear some genuine counter-arguments, then the issue of HME dissolves; there is a perceived bias because there REALLY IS bias. Furthermore, there are some careful polls produced of late which clearly show the huge divide between public opinion and the agenda setters in mainstream media who pretend to represent their position.

Chris said...

rik hine,

First, the research I cited looks both at the Democrat/liberal-Republican/conservative dimension, and at particular issues (genetically altered foods, abortion, gun control, etc.), and it does so in several different countries. So, it's not just about liberal and conservative bias, though most people in the U.S. perceive the bias as being in one of those two directions.

I'm quite familiar with "Manufacturing Consent," though I'm not sure anything in it even approaches "one of the most empirically well supported theses in the social sciences." But even if the filtering of the media were that well confirmed, it would be irrelevant to the points in the HME literature. The HME literature looks at specific issues, and beliefs about the direction of bias on particular dimensions.

My own political philosophy (which is heavily influenced by actual political philosophers from Frankfurt, rather than linguists from Cambridge) leads me to see it as biased, too, in that (as I'm sure Chomsky would agree) the media sticks to a couple dimensions, or as Marcuse says, one dimension. But that's irrelevant to the research, too, because that's not the bias people perceive.

Anonymous said...

Hi Chris, thanks for the comments; they help clarify some points. However, my overall position is still relevant. The HME literature you cite only reaps the results that it does based on the ‘finding’ that there is no media bias on any of the specific issues that they investigate subject responses to. That the research claims, in the first instance, there is no media bias is clearly a major methodological flaw. Any ideological bent in mass media reporting will surely affect its coverage along many, and perhaps all, dimensions. Furthermore, the notion of neutral subjects in this research is also flawed. If subjects declare themselves to be neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian, for instance, and they have arrived at this ‘neutral’ position based on media bias, then clearly to call such a subject genuinely neutral is simply question begging.
Also, your ad hominem point about ‘actual political philosophers from Frankfurt, rather than linguists from Cambridge’ is quite ironic given your interest in the HME literature. You mention that subjects will perceive a bias depending on the provenance of the information (journalist vs. student) and then you proceed to question the veridicality of some research because the geographical location of the author/s or their professional title doesn’t suit your taste!

Chris said...

Rik, sorry about the little jab at Chomsky. I tend to make them whenever an opportunity presents itself. It has little to do with this discussion (though the point that Chomsky's view of the media is hardly original is worth making).

Now, as for whether we can test for directional biases in the media. The answer is, of course, that no one measure would leave us confident in any conclusion. So, we use multiple measures along particular dimensions to test for specific directional bias. And if we don't find any, we can be fairly confident that, at least in that direction, it doesn't exist.

As for "neutral" people, while you and I (and certainly Chomsky) may think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a huge issue that everyone thinks about, the fact is that it would not be difficult to find people who know nothing about it (or about genetically altered foods, or even abortion). Some of these people would quickly form opinions when watching news coverage, but that's part of the reason for doing research on media bias (to see if it leads people to form opinions on one direction or another).

Also, you seem to be missing an important point about the HME. It may very well be true that the media is biased (again, I think it has what you might call a one-dimensional bias), but that won't affect the search for biases in particular directions. And, it may be that there are biases in particular directions. But nothing about that, or anything else you've said, would explain why people who take a side on an issue (or a general political orientation) almost always perceive the bias to be in the opposite direction. But it can't be the case that it is both skewed towards one side, and skewed towards the opposite side. That's not what bias or skew, mean. In other words, unless you or Chomsky believes that the media is, in fact, capable of breaking the law of noncontradiction, you've still got some data to explain.

Anonymous said...

Hi Chris,

thanks for the further clarification. I did indeed miss some of the aspects that you are interested in regarding HME. I take it then that the issue is something like this; two football teams play a match, you support one team and I the other. The game ends 1-1 and we both complain that the referee was biased against our respective teams (which, if it occurred would violate the law of non-contradiction)?
My point, though, is that this isn't the question that we really want to answer if it turns out that there IS a bias. Maybe the ref. really was biased in favour of the other team and I'm particularly adept at spotting such behaviour. Hence I perceive a genuine bias and it's just your skewed perceptions that we need to address.
In other words, I think the question that HME is examining is only relevant when we can find cases where there really is no bias. And i'm still unconvinced that many cases of such media coverage exist. It isn't just a case of bias along one dimension. If mass media is part of the establishment, so to speak, this ideological element is likely to infect coverage of a huge range of very specific topics along multiple dimensions. Perhaps you could give me some examples from the research that are claimed to provide evidence of neutrality?
One quick point, the media analysis which Chomsky is associated with was, by his own admission, the brain-child of Ed Herman. Chomsky acknowledges that he just helped with the empirical data for the model.

Chris said...

Rike, I cited a couple papers in the post that used neutral observers (see the first few footnotes).

Now, a good Chomskyan or Adornoian or Marcusean might argue that the media is in fact biased, but not in the way that people think it is biased (in the HME). Instead, the HME, as it plays out, is a symptom of that bias: the media is one among many factors that makes people think in one-dimensional terms. The bias is either liberal or conservative, in their minds, while there are many other possible dimensions.

However, on that one dimension, I think it's possible to look for bias, as many have done, and conclude whether there is or isn't based on the data. And if poeple still perceive bias on that dimension, then we can be certain that their perceptions are biased as well.

Another possibility is that the media is biased in the sense that it tends to fall somewhere in the middle of mainstream opinion on a dimension (e.g., liberal and conservative), and tends to leave out the extremes. That's probably the case, as well, but I tried to make the point in the post that the HME has become part of the mainstream opinion, and since there is a wealth of empirical evidence that relative to mainstream liberal and conservative views, there is no bias, their perceptions are still off.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Chris,

I'll need to go through the research details you cite before I can continue this thread. Hopefully I can pick this up again when i've finished a couple of papers with pressing due dates!!

Anonymous said...

You're missing a much more obvious solution. Namely that the media aren't that good at their jobs, or simply overworked if you want to be nice. On any complex issue there are too many relevant facts for the reporter to understand.

The article ends up being 3 talking points from each side, plus the reporter's opinion. Anyone who's polliticaly active will notice that 90% of their argument has been cut. Plus the reporter will draw conclusions that are often easily refutable.

Since the people being interviewed don't have a chance to respond to the conclusions, it can be very frustrating for someone who has a good come back that will never see the light of day.

Essentially we live in a specialized industrial society and reporters are still trained to be generalists. Their incompetence is being misinterpreted as malice.

Anonymous said...

People have to accept that objectivism does not exist.

Everything is biased in life.

Anonymous said...

This article is patently false in that it claims that Study after Study finds no media bias. The complete opposit is the case. Study after Study DOES show media bias.

However, I will conced that a partisan will find news and information that validates their own position and not equate their news source is bias. Quite the contrary, they will see news organizations that offer a different opinion than their own as biased.

The bias learning model negates influences that differ than one's own opinion. A partisan will suscribe to news outlets that reaffirm their veiws without regard to other view points that contradict their own opinions.

These are only a sample of any Google search. Additioinally, as a Graduate Student, I have many hundreds of references of media bias from non-partisan research groups that I have used on a research project in Political Science. The below links are just a random search that any one can perform. See links.

http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm

http://economics.missouri.edu/Working_Paper_Series/2005/wp0501_milyo.pdf

http://www.cesifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%202006/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%20September%202006/cesifo1_wp1798.pdf

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

wow power leveling said...

cheap wow power leveling buy wow gold cheapest wow power leveling CHEAP wow gold BUY power leveling CHEAPEST wow powerleveling
wow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldweiwei

Anonymous said...

http://pumacat0.cocolog-nifty.com/
http://wholesaleol.net
http://webthink.jugem.jp

Anonymous said...

http://pumacat0.cocolog-nifty.com/
http://wholesaleol.net
http://webthink.jugem.jp

Cheryl said...

Anyway, my opinion is that don't trust media always, they speaks someone's interest.
learn French and learn Chinese

Anonymous said...

The cold winter, does not seem too for wedding. Most recently, the cold one after another,

hangzhou air temperature pelter, let many wedding in late November bride is due a single wear

gauze or dress, will feel cold, wear too much and feel very bloated. For the bride, the winter is

the biggest test how wedding in temperature and balance between poise.

Don't be too upset, actually this season only fees cheap Wedding Dresses, marriage can create a different

character "winter wedding", also more memorable.

You can use the glittering and translucent white fairy tale, cheap cell phones
,the artistic conception to dress up oneself's wedding, choose blue, green, white ice cold tonal,

decorous atmosphere to create beautiful, Can borrow snow machine and bubble machine build indoor

romantic atmosphere, snowflake, feathers, Christmas tree,cheap cocktail

dresses
, even is the element such as silver crystal, can add to your winter wedding dreamy

colour, cheap

jewelry
you can even in a pile of snowman YingBinChu lovely, guests, we must take it and will

soon be well.

Anothre set of ralph lauren polo in three colors. Ralph

Lauren Polo Shirts
come with a graduation of colors on the chest. The new shiki Cheap polo

shirts logo is on the chest. Comes in all layres and can be worned tucked in or out Wholesale Polo Shirts -50% OFF.
Also comes with sculpted collar and arm cuffs.Flat knit collar, Contrast placket and half

moon, Mothre-of-pearl buttons and tennis tail, Soft double knit piqué,100% cotton ralph lauren

polo shirts. If you lend your embroidrere a sample cheapralph lauren polos that will help you get

the closest match to the original embroidreed design. The artwork you provide will sreve as a

template for your embroidrey set-up but discount ralph lauren polos can't be used to identify some

stitch types, cheap polo shirts Cheap Polo Shirtsgive

precise sizing of embroidreed elements and show thread polo clothing colors.

Anonymous said...

ghd
cheap ghd
ghd straighteners
Benefit GHD
GHD IV Salon Styler
GHD MINI STYLER
GHD Precious gift
Gold GHD
Kiss GHD
New pink GHD
Pink GHD
Pure Black GHD
Pure White GHD
Purple GHD
Rare GHD
Babyliss
polo boots
polo shoes
cheap straighteners
ghd hair straighteners
hair straighteners
Purple GHD IV Styler
Pure White GHD
Pure Black GHD
Pink GHD IV Styler
Kiss GHD Styler
Gray GHD IV Styler
Gold GHD IV Styler
GHD Rare Styler
GHD IV Salon Styler
Black GHD IV Styler
Benefit GHD IV Styler

Anonymous said...

herve leger
herve leger dresses

chanel
chanel iman
chanel outlet
chanel handbag
Chanel Wallet
Chanel Watch
chanel purse

Chanel Sunglasses
chanel bags
chanel earrings
chanel jewelry
chanel shoes

Anonymous said...

air max,Nike air max
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 1
air max 95
nike air max 360
nike air max ltd
air max ltd
air max 360
air max classic,Air Max Huarache
air max light
air max bw
air max plus
air max 180
air max nike
air max TN
air max 87
timberland
timberland boots
timberland shoes
cheap timberland boots
timberland uk
timberlands
timberland 2010
timberland outlet

月月 said...

jordan 12
jordan 13
jordan 14
jordan 15
jordan 16
jordan 17 rings
jordan 18
jordan 19

janewangleilei said...

jordan 1
jordan 2
jordan 3
jordan 4
jordan 5
jordan 6
jordan 7