[Nochd geàrr-chunntas den artaigil a leanas o chionn ghoirid ann an Aithisg NACLA air Ameireaga as part of the magazine’s Media Accuracy on Aimearaga-Laideannach project]
"Ann an ùine ghoirid, tha 'sòisealachd an 21mh linn' aig Mgr Chávez a' coimhead gu dubhach mar an dreach san 20mh linn: stàite fo bhlàth, brùideil le fear làidir hectory os a chionn."
— Deasachaidh anns an Washington 'Phuist, 17 Lùnastal 2007 [1]
“Ann an deachdaireachdan tha sinn nas fortanach na thusa san Iar ann an aon dòigh. Chan eil sinn a’ creidsinn dad de na leughas sinn anns na pàipearan-naidheachd agus dad de na bhios sinn a’ coimhead air telebhisean, oir tha fios againn gur e propaganda agus breugan a th’ ann. Eu-coltach riut san Iar, tha sinn “Tha mi air ionnsachadh a bhith a’ coimhead air cùl a’ phropaganda agus a bhith a’ leughadh eadar na loidhnichean, agus eu-coltach riut fhèin, tha fios againn gu bheil an fhìor fhìrinn an-còmhnaidh neo-sheasmhach."
—Nòcail Seiceach agus eas-aonta bho linn nan Sobhietich Zdener Urbanek [2]
Ged a tha an New York Times, Washington a 'Phuist, agus tha a' mhòr-chuid de ionadan naidheachd eile ag ràdh gu bheil an aithris agus an anailis aca "amas," chan eil susbaint nan duilleagan aca a-riamh neo-phàirteach; tha e do-sheachanta a’ toirt taic no a’ lagachadh amasan poileasaidh an riaghaltais. Leis gu bheil pàipearan-naidheachd mar an Times agus 'Phuist constitute a principle source of information about the outside world for so much of the US population, they have the obligation to promote the development of an informed citizenry capable of critically assessing issues of international relevance. Therefore what these papers report, how they do so, and what they omit are questions of fundamental importance for understanding the public response (or lack thereof) to US actions abroad.
These questions become especially important when considering countries like A 'Bheiniseala far a bheil US government has, or seeks to have, a strong influence upon political and economic development. Since the 1998 election of President Hugo Chávez, Washington has grown increasingly hostile toward the Venezuelan government, supporting a failed military coup against Chávez in 2002 and channeling millions of dollars to Venezuelan opposition groups since then [3]. Media coverage of A 'Bheiniseala has generally been quite hostile as well, as many independent analyses have pointed out [4].
This article expands upon earlier critiques of media coverage of A 'Bheiniseala by comparing media coverage of A 'Bheiniseala with that of a key US ally in the region, Columbia. I argue that the major liberal newspapers’ coverage of these two countries conforms closely to Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s "propaganda model," which predicts that corporate media will demonstrate a consistent bias toward official enemies of the US and, conversely, a consistent leniency or good will toward official friends [5]. Here I focus on coverage in the nation’s two leading "liberal" newspapers, the New York Times agus Washington a 'Phuist, arguing that these two papers’ coverage of A 'Bheiniseala agus Columbia consistently omits and distorts crucial information that is necessary for readers to gain an understanding of events in these countries.The final section of the article locates the last decade’s coverage of A 'Bheiniseala in the long-term history of US relations with Latin America, underscoring the importance of cultural and political discourses to US power in the region [6].
Ro-innsean bunaiteach den mhodail propaganda
The propaganda model predicts that the mass media’s coverage of news will tend to reflect domestic power interests. Despite some variation, the mass media help "to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state" [7]. When covering US foreign policy, media outlets will present information and analysis that supports the prerogatives of powerful elite groups in the US, which usually means supporting official government goals abroad. As a result, official friends are treated very differently from official enemies. Achievements and violations in the fields of human rights, democracy, and social justice are alternately emphasized, invented, downplayed, or ignored depending on the parties involved and their official standing in Washington [8]
Columbia agus A 'Bheiniseala, an official friend and an official enemy, offer a concrete opportunity to test the usefulness of the propaganda model for coverage of Aimearaga-Laideannach. If the model applies, US print media will show contrasting tendencies of favorable coverage toward Álvaro Uribe’s government in Columbia and negative coverage of the Chávez government in A 'Bheiniseala. The Uribe government will be portrayed in a way that makes it look relatively democratic, progressive, and peaceful, while the Chávez government will be depicted as authoritarian, oppressive, and militaristic.
Gus an ro-aithris seo a dhearbhadh, nì mi measadh air còmhdach nam meadhanan air dà sheata de thachartasan coltach ris a thachair o chionn ghoirid anns an dà dhùthaich sin, agus a tha air a bhith an sàs ann an cùisean agus tachartasan a tha co-dhiù an ìre mhath co-shìnte ri chèile. Tha an dà sheata de thachartasan air a bhith a’ toirt a-steach poileasaidhean riaghaltais a dh’ fhaodadh a bhith air am faicinn mar bhith a’ lughdachadh saorsa deamocratach agus a’ meudachadh cumhachd an riaghaltais thairis air luchd-dùbhlain:
1. Saorsa cainnt agus na meadhanan. Anns an Dàmhair 2004 dhùin riaghaltas Uribe stèisean Tbh prìobhaideach, Inravisión, aig an robh aonadh luchd-obrach air cur an aghaidh cuid de phoileasaidhean Uribe. Anns a’ Chèitean 2007 chuir riaghaltas Chávez air ais cead craolaidh poblach RCTV, stèisean Tbh prìobhaideach a bha air taic a thoirt do chupa armachd neo-thorrach na aghaidh còig bliadhna roimhe sin.
2. Crìochan teirm ceann-suidhe. In October 2005 President Uribe won a court case enabling him to amend Columbia‘s Constitution to seek the presidency for an additional term. Two years later President Chávez proposed a similar measure that was narrowly defeated in a popular referendum.
Though the circumstances of each government action differed between the two countries, each pair of events is similar enough to allow for a controlled comparison of their respective coverage in the US press. If the propaganda model holds, newspaper reports and editorials will show outrage over Chávez’s actions while ignoring or downplaying the corresponding events in Columbia.
Cùis Deuchainn 1: Meadhanan dùbhlanach a dhùnadh sìos
A 'Bheiniseala
Air 27 Cèitean 2007 thàinig cead craolaidh poblach RCTV gu crìch agus chaidh an stèisean far an adhair, sia mìosan às deidh dha Ceann-suidhe Venezuelan Hugo Chávez ainmeachadh nach deidheadh cead an stèisein ùrachadh. Bha RCTV air taic gutha a thoirt seachad do chupa armachd a chuir às do Chávez goirid sa Ghiblean 2002, air taic a thoirt do stailc ola a chaidh a dhealbhadh gus an riaghaltas a thoirt sìos nas fhaide air a’ bhliadhna sin, agus air raon de bhrisidhean laghail nas lugha de riaghailtean craolaidh a ghealltainn thairis air a ’cheathramh linn mu dheireadh. [9]. Chaidh cead a thoirt don stèisean cumail a’ craoladh air saideal agus telebhisean càbaill, ach bha e gu h-èifeachdach air a thoirmeasg bho tonnan adhair poblach.
TABLE 1:
Coverage of Government Closure of TV Stations in A 'Bheiniseala agus Columbia
Anns a’ New York Times agus Washington 'Phuist*
dùthaich
Àireamh de Artaigilean
A 'toirt iomradh air an dùnadh
An àireamh de dheasachaidhean a tha a’ càineadh an dùnadh
Àireamh sa cheud de Iomlan
A 'Bheiniseala
19
2
100
Columbia
0
0
0
iomlan
19
2
100
*Coverage analyzed includes the two-month period starting several weeks prior to the key government action (1 May to 1 July 2007 for A 'Bheiniseala; 15 September to 15 November 2004 for Columbia). Tallies do not include articles and editorials that alluded to a lack of free speech in either country but which did not explicitly mention the television station closure. "Editorials" includes Op-Ed pieces.
Anns a 'Chèitean agus an Ògmhios 2007 an New York Times agus Washington a 'Phuist Bha naoi artaigilean deug gu h-iomlan a’ dèiligeadh ri neo-ùrachadh cead RCTV, a bharrachd air dà cholbh deasachaidh a’ càineadh gu làidir co-dhùnadh riaghaltas Venezuelan (faic Clàr 1). Bha an àireamh de dh'artaigilean leotha fhèin a' nochdadh an ùpraid a bh' aig an dà phàipear-naidheachd mun tachartas; a bharrachd air an sin, tha na naoi artaigilean deug gu lèir a’ cur gnìomhan an riaghaltais ann an solas àicheil.
Am prionnsapal Times neach-conaltraidh airson A 'Bheiniseala and the surrounding region is Simon Romero. Immediately following the expiration of RCTV’s license, the Times published articles by Romero on May 27, May 28, May 29, and June 1 (along with a spate of additional articles in the following weeks), all of which painted a picture of a despotic strongman cracking down on dissenters. Romero’s May 27 report described the decisive "shift in media" under Chávez, saying that as a result of this decision and others "a new media elite is emerging," one composed "of ideological devotees to Mr. Chavez [sic]" [10]. Romero obliquely admits that "most news organizations in A 'Bheiniseala remain in private hands," but dismisses that fact by implying that Chávez is bullying all private news outlets into toeing the Party line [11]. The next day Romero reported that "thousands of protesters" filled the streets of the capital Caracas before "the police dispersed [them] by firing tear gas into [the] demonstrations." The report also quoted a Venezuelan soap-opera star who called Chávez’s government "a dictatorship" [12]. On June 1 Romero concluded that after unleashing "chilling threats of retribution, Mr. Chavez seems prepared to harden his treatment of both the protesters and any media organizations that oppose him" [13]. Romero’s reports on RCTV are consistent with his other recent reportage on A 'Bheiniseala, and with other news reports in the Times bhon aon ùine [14].
An aon Times editorial or op-ed focusing on the RCTV affair came on June 6. In a piece titled "Silence = Despotism," former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo angrily condemned the government’s decision and located his criticisms within a broader indictment of Chávez. Toledo argued that "President Chavez has become a destabilizing figure throughout the hemisphere" because he "silence[s] anyone with opposing thoughts"—a trend which could spread to other countries if citizens and their governments are not careful. He then implicitly equated Chávez’s government with past Latin American dictatorships, urging that "[t]hose of us who confronted authoritarianism in the past must again stand up for continent-wide solidarity" [15].
Tha 'Phuistbha an còmhdach coltach ris. Sgrìobh prìomh neach-naidheachd a’ phàipeir san roinn, Juan Forero, dòrlach de dh’aithisgean mu dheidhinn gnothach RCTV. Ann an artaigil a chaidh fhoillseachadh dà uair air dà latha an dèidh a chèile, aon uair air an duilleag aghaidh, sgrìobh Forero “[o] tha ionadan-reic, gu sònraichte stèiseanan telebhisean, a bha uair gu làidir an-aghaidh an riaghaltais air fàs mì-chinnteach fo chunnart smachd-bhannan," agus dh'ainmich e an tobar aige mar "buidhnean saorsa naidheachd agus còraichean daonna" [16]. - gu dearbh cho-dhùin "A 'Bheinisealas tha coltas gu bheil an riaghaltas an dùil gnìomh cruaidh a dhèanamh an aghaidh an luchd-càineadh" [17]. Rè an dà sheachdain dìreach ro agus às deidh dha RCTV falbh bho na tonnan adhair, 'Phuist also featured six "World in Brief" updates that all cast Chávez in a decidedly autocratic light. Several of the updates also portrayed government forces as violently repressive of the protests in Caracas. The May 29 update reported that "[p]olice fired tear gas and plastic bullets into a crowd of about 5,000 people protesting a decision by President Hugo Chávez that forced a television station critical of his government off the air." The report did not mention that many of the protesters had committed acts of violence, although one later update noted that the protests were "sometimes violent" and another said that "[a]t least 30 [protesters] were charged with violent acts" [18].
Fiù 's nas motha na an Times', an 'Phuistbha craoladh buailteach a bhith a’ glòrachadh an luchd-iomairt mar luchd-sabaid gaisgeil airson saorsa a thug an aghaidh gu gaisgeil ri nàimhdeas agus masladh riaghaltas Chávez. Dh’ innis am brath-ullachaidh air 27 Cèitean “Chaidh deichean de mhìltean de Venezuelans air na sràidean a’ seinn ‘Saorsa, saorsa!’ gus gearan a dhèanamh mu cho-dhùnadh a’ Cheann-suidhe Hugo Chávez.” Chan e a-mhàin gu bheil am figear “deichean de mhìltean” a’ togail ìomhaigh an aghaidh mòr, mòr-chòrdte an aghaidh an riaghaltais, ach tha e cuideachd beagan amharasach ann fhèin leis an àireamh de 5,000 a chaidh ainmeachadh airson gearan 28 Cèitean. Chuir aithisg naidheachd 16 Ògmhios le Pamela Constable cuideachd luchd-dùbhlain an riaghaltais ann an solas gaisgeil:
B’ e gluasad beag de ghearan a bh’ ann: dusan oileanach colaisde a’ comharrachadh chàraichean airson uair a thìde air an Ambassy Row air a’ mhìos seo, a’ caitheamh gags geal samhlachail thairis air am beul agus a’ cumail suas postairean a thug iomradh air Albert Camus agus Walt Whitman air cho cudromach sa tha cainnt an-asgaidh.
Ach an fhearg dhiubh so A 'Bheiniseala-born young people—furious at the shutdown of a popular private TV channel in Caracas—reflected the fast-rising political fervor that is gripping Venezuelan immigrants in the Na Stàitean Aonaichte after years of private frustration over the tightening revolutionary grip of President Hugo Chavez. [19]
Constable’s description is highly reminiscent of reports on Eastern-bloc protesters leading up to the fall of the aonadh Sòbhieteach. Through this veiled comparison to the USSR the Venezuelan protesters are lionized into virtuous freedom-fighters standing up to a brutal and ossified regime.
Is dòcha gu robh e na bu chudromaiche na reul-eòlas hyperbolic agus coimeasan amh ri seann deachdaireachdan, ge-tà, an iomadh mion-fhiosrachadh fìrinneach a chaidh fhàgail a-mach à craoladh naidheachdan mu shuidheachadh RCTV. De na h-easbhaidhean uile a bha a’ comharrachadh a’ mhòr-chuid Times agus 'Phuist craoladh, tha aon a’ seasamh os cionn a’ chòrr: an fhìrinn a tha air a dheagh chlàradh gun tug RCTV taic ghuthach air iasad do chupa 2002 an aghaidh riaghaltas a chaidh a thaghadh gu deamocratach. Bha RCTV gu tric air a mhìneachadh mar “lìonra eas-aontach” no “stèisean Tbh an aghaidh” gun iomradh sam bith air an taic a thug e don chupa [20]. Nuair a thug aithrisean naidheachd agus pìosan beachd iomradh air an fhìrinn seo, mar as trice bha iad ga dhearbhadh le bhith ag ràdh sin Chávez ag ràdh gun robh RCTV air taic a thoirt don chupa. Eisimpleir àbhaisteach anns an aiste 'Phuist ag aithris gun robh "[a]tha ùghdarrasan an seo ag ràdh gun tug RCTV taic do chupa a chuir às do Chávez airson dà latha ann an 2002" [21]. Le bhith a’ cumadh taic RCTV don chupa mar chasaidde riaghaltas Venezuelan - aig nach eil, le mìneachadh, ach glè bheag de chreideas - bha na meadhanan a’ nochdadh gun robh a’ chasaid an aghaidh RCTV faodar a chuir às a dhreuchd mar rangachadh deamografach riaghladair neo-fhiosrachail.
The omission of important details was in part the result of the sources consulted. Each of the reporters and columnists who wrote on A 'Bheiniseala showed a strong anti-Chávez bias, and usually gave preference to anti-Chávez "experts." The few sources with alternative views on RCTV were consistently marginalized or implicitly identified as too close to Chávez to offer an accurate portrait of events. Among those sources sympathetic to Chávez (or who at least raise some of the inconvenient facts), almost all were members of the Venezuelan government, with Chávez himself often the only one quoted. On May 21 the 'Phuist dh’ fhoillsich e freagairt ghoirid (facal 286) bho Stiùiriche Rèidio Nàiseanta Venezuelan, Helena Salcedo, a chomharraich sin
tha a’ mhòr-chuid de na meadhanan fhathast ann an làmhan prìobhaideach. De na 81 stèiseanan telebhisean, 709 craoladairean rèidio agus 118 pàipearan-naidheachd air feadh A 'Bheiniseala, Tha 79, 706 agus 118, fa leth, ann an sealbh prìobhaideach agus air an obrachadh…
[I]n 2002 [RCTV’s] owner, Marcel Granier, actively supported a coup against the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez. In no country would such conduct be permitted by a media outlet; in fact, Stàitean Aonaichte broadcasters have faced fines or license revocations for lesser offenses. [22]
Salcedo raises two important points: that most media in A 'Bheiniseala is still privately-owned, and that the level of press freedom there is at least as great as in the US. But her credibility is automatically suspect because she is affiliated with the Chávez government, which only gives political power and media access to its "ideological devotees."
Bha Salcedo air sgrìobhadh chun an 'Phuist mar fhreagairt do phìos op-ed le Jackson Diehl bho 14 Cèitean anns an robh Diehl a’ comharrachadh Chávez mar “dheachdaire.” Thuirt Diehl gun robh Chávez air ionnsaighean brùideil òrdachadh air eas-aontaich agus gu bheil an “duilgheadas aige le Granier agus RCTV poilitigeach”, a’ lughdachadh meud eucoir RCTV (a’ toirt taic do bhith a’ cur às do riaghaltas a tha air a thaghadh gu deamocratach). Tha invective Diehl air a lìonadh le saobhadh eile agus tagraidhean gun stèidh cuideachd: tha e a’ ciallachadh gu bheil “cumhachd riaghlaidh le òrdugh” neo-chuingealaichte aig Chávez gun deach cead RCTV a chuir dheth “air òrdugh pearsanta Chávez” (ann an da-rìribh, bha an Àrd Chùirt an sàs cuideachd) , agus sin "chan eil institiudan dachaigheil no eadar-nàiseanta cudromach ann an rèim a tha a’ sìor fhàs pearsanta.” San fharsaingeachd, tha an dealbh mar aon de theachdaire deachdaire nach eil ceangailte ri laghan bun-reachdail no gnàthasan eadar-nàiseanta [23]. ionadan eadar-nàiseanta am measg an fheadhainn a dhealbhaich no a thug taic do chupa armachd 2002.
Bidh Diehl a’ faighinn cothrom cunbhalach air an 'Phuist op-ed page, whereas well-respected scholars and journalists with alternative views on A 'Bheiniseala are not. This differential of access is symptomatic of a much broader phenomenon: the consistent preference of the Times agus 'Phuist airson luchd-aithris, luchd-colbh, agus luchd-aithris a tha an aghaidh riaghaltas Chávez. Cha robh e doirbh sgoilearan agus luchd-naidheachd cliùiteach le beachdan eile air tachartas RCTV a lorg, ach is ann ainneamh a chaidh an ainmeachadh anns an Times agus 'Phuist. Am measg na buidhne seo bha an neach-naidheachd Gregory Wilpert, a thug fa-near sin
[i] sa chumantas thathas a’ gabhail ris gu bheil sàmhchair sam bith de ghuthan an aghaidh saorsa cainnte. Ach a bheil guth an aghaidh dha-rìribh na thost? An e seo am meafar ceart? A bheil stiùiriche RCTV, Marcel Granier, dha-rìribh na thost? Chan e, is e metafhor nas fheàrr gu bheil am megaphone a chleachd Granier (agus feadhainn eile) airson a bhith a’ cleachdadh an òraid shaor aige ga thilleadh chun luchd-seilbh aige - megaphone a fhuair e air iasad, ach nach robh aige a-riamh. Chan e a-mhàin sin, tha cead aige fhathast megaphone nas lugha (càball & saideal) a chleachdadh. [24]
Coltach ri Helena Salcedo, tha Wilpert a’ tabhann sealladh eile, stèidhichte air fìrinn co-dhiù a cheart cho dligheach ri gin a tha air a thaisbeanadh anns an Times or 'Phuist. But like a long list of independent journalists and scholars with heretical views on the RCTV situation, Wilpert was not featured in these two papers [25]. The exclusion of such alternative viewpoints along with the absence of important factual and contextual details reflects a consistent trend in press coverage of A 'Bheiniseala in the past decade.
Columbia
A comparative look at coverage of Columbia at the time of President Uribe’s closing of Inravisión is not possible, since not a single mention of that closing appeared in either of the two newspapers (Table 1). While I have not intended to justify the Venezuelan’s government decision regarding RCTV, or to claim that it was popular among Venezuelans (some polls suggest it was not, in part because the channel had featured popular soap operas), the dramatic difference between the papers’ùpraid thairis air RCTV agus an dìth aire iomlan do Inravisión a’ nochdadh claonadh gun samhail air an taobh aca. Ma tha dad ann, bu chòir gum biodh craoladh cothromach sna meadhanan air nochdadh barrachd outrage over the Uribe government’s closure of Inravisión, which had done nothing illegal [26]. The fact that not a single article or editorial column even mentioned the event is strong evidence of the propaganda model’s applicability vis-à-vis A 'Bheiniseala agus Columbia. In fact, similar examples are available for other US-backed governments as well; media censorship similar to that in Columbia has occurred in recent years in Megsago and other countries ruled by US allies without the US press taking notice [27].
Eadar 2004 agus 2007 dh’ fheuch Hugo Chávez agus Álvaro Uribe ri crìochan teirm ceann-suidhe a leudachadh no a chuir às anns na dùthchannan aca fhèin; Bha Uribe soirbheachail, cha robh Chávez. Bha molaidhean an dà cheann-suidhe eadar-dhealaichte ann an trì dòighean a bharrachd: an toiseach, chuir Chávez an t-iarrtas aige a-steach ann am pasgan nas motha de ath-leasachaidhean sòisealta, eaconamach agus poilitigeach, ach cha do rinn Uribe; san dàrna h-àite, chaidh moladh Chávez agus ath-leasachaidhean a chuir fodha le referendum mòr-chòrdte den luchd-bhòtaidh gu lèir, ach chaidh iarrtas Uribe a cheadachadh le Còmhdhail Coloimbia agus a dhaingneachadh le riaghladh na h-Àrd Chùirt; agus san treas àite, mhol Chávez cur às do chrìochan teirmean gu tur agus mhol Uribe an leudachadh. A dh’ aindeoin na h-eadar-dhealachaidhean sin, ge-tà, bha molaidhean an dà cheann-suidhe gu ìre mhòr co-chosmhail leis gun robh iad le chèile a’ feuchainn ri leigeil leis a’ cheann-suidhe gnàthach ruith airson dreuchd a-rithist, a’ riochdachadh leudachadh air cumhachd pearsanta a’ chinn-suidhe. Mar sin, dh’ fhaodadh gum biodh an dà thachartas a’ togail bheachdan co-chosmhail bho luchd-amhairc bhon taobh a-muigh agus mar sin a’ toirt cothrom air sgrùdadh cùise coimeasach a dhèanamh air na meadhanan.
A 'Bheiniseala
Thachair referendum Venezuelan air 2 Dùbhlachd, 2007. Anns an t-Samhain agus san Dùbhlachd chaidh an New York Times dh’ fhoillsich e dà fhichead aithisg naidheachd a’ toirt iomradh, agus ochd deasachaidhean is deasachaidhean a’ càineadh gu soilleir, oidhirpean Chávez gus a chumhachdan a leudachadh. De na 30 artaigilean iomlan sin, tha mu dhà thrian (19) a’ toirt iomradh gu sònraichte air oidhirp Chávez gus cuir às do chrìochan teirmean; an aon stàit deug eile no a’ ciallachadh gun robh Chávez a’ feuchainn ri a chumhachdan fhèin a leudachadh ach gun a bhith a’ toirt iomradh soilleir air cùis chrìochan teirmean (faic Clàr 2, a tha a’ nochdadh am figear nas lugha de 19 agus 11 artaigilean anns an 'Phuist).
TABLE 2:
Coverage of Presidential Attempts to Extend Term Limits in A 'Bheiniseala agus Columbia
Anns a’ New York Times agus Washington 'Phuist*
dùthaich
Àireamh de dh'artaigilean a' toirt iomradh air leudachadh a thathar a' moladh air crìochan teirm
Àireamh de dheasachaidhean a' càineadh leudachadh a thathar a' moladh air crìochan teirm
Àireamh sa cheud de Iomlan
A 'Bheiniseala
Tha ZNetwork air a mhaoineachadh a-mhàin tro fhialaidheachd an luchd-leughaidh.
1 beachd
Pingback: 7.24.14LailyDinks | Ceanglaichean làitheil & naidheachdan