Can we be more CFL-positive?

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

We've gotten into some discussion recently about the business of fans wearing NFL gear at games; I've been clear that it doesn't bother me a great deal, nor should it really bother anyone. But there is one NFL-related matter that DOES kind of bother me that I'd like to broach.

I wish the people who cover the CFL, including and perhaps especially TSN (and I guess this would include TSN 1040), would quit making comments in their coverage that implicitly defer to the NFL as an absolute frame of football reference to which the CFL must constantly compare itself.

It happens all the time. Some examples:

"The football season doesn't really start until after Labour Day." I'm getting most tired of this one. Yes, that's when the *NFL* season starts. But it's like telling CFL fans, "Don't bother wasting your money buying tickets to any summer games." Is it just a coincidence that our attendance generally picks up in the latter half of the schedule? I think we hear this comment so often, that for some fans it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe more people would attend these games if we quit telling they don't count, which isn't even true in the first place.

"You only need *ONE* foot in bounds in the CFL." This is often said of a catch almost out of bounds, and yes, they always emphasise the "*ONE*". The way this phrase gets invoked, you'd think every last person watching and listening to the commentary is aghast: "What?!?!?! Surely, that's not a catch because in the holy NFL you need BOTH feet down in bounds to make it count, so it MUST work the same way in th— oh wait, he just said you only need *ONE* foot so it's not the same rule as the NFL. Thank goodness he clarified that." I'd rather see this phrase more pro-actively framed, something like, "Arceneaux leaps, makes the catch and gets his foot [taking care to use the singular] down for another BC first down at the Ssk 27." See the difference? The large majority of regular viewers understand this rule on its own terms anyway.

"You only have three downs in the CFL." Another empty phrase that needlessly describes the CFL implicitly in NFL terms. The way this phrase gets mentioned so often, it's like we can't afford a 4th down, not enough money in the budget for it or something. Please get rid of it.

"The CFL has smaller rosters." Smaller than...? Yeah, you guessed it. This one is often invoked when a player, more renowned for his play in his regular role on offence or defence, makes a great special teams play, and so there seems to be this need to point out that the reason he also plays on special teams is *because*... well, you know. The comment has an apologetic tone. When they say, "The CFL has smaller rosters," what I hear between the lines is, "You never have NFL clubs cobbling their special teams together from mostly starters, but you see, here in the CFL, where we live in football squalor, this is the way we have to do it." The CFL has smaller rosters? No.... no, no. BASKETBALL has smaller rosters. Again, can't we put a more positive framing on it?

Let's say our MODP candidate just made a great special teams tackle. How about instead of handwringing over how the "smaller rosters" forces us to play him on special teams, we put it something like this: "You know, most people think of Solomon Elimimian and they think of his elite linebacking skills. But what some folks forget is that #56 brings you a lot more than that. Let's watch this punt again and just have a look at how he powers through Cgy's coverage unit and how quickly he gets downfield... yada yada yada. That's just pure instinct. You can't teach that. You can't coach it. And that's why Wally Buono just signed him to an extension." No apologising. Pump the guy up as being so valuable an asset to his team that he's out there on special teams because they WANT him, not because they're "forced" to use him on account of "smaller rosters".

These are just off the top of my head but this post is already long enough anyway. There are probably more of these tropes that we hear so often we don't even realise how negative they really are, and how much more positively the points that they try to make could be framed. Feel free to contribute your own.

If I were the guy replacing Cohon next year, I'd definitely want to put some resources into improving this aspect of the product. I know the CFL only has so much control over TSN, but the league and the network should work together on this for their own mutual benefit to improve the presentation of the product.

The CFL is a league that has developed organically on its own — largely in parallel to, and independent of, the NFL. But the way we so often hear the sort of aphorisms I've outlined above, one can come away with the false impression that the CFL was somehow devised merely as a latter-day Canadian version of a pre-established, mature NFL. Even in the absence of the version of the game currently enjoyed south of the border, I think Canadian football would still be around. Maybe not on as large as a scale as the CFL currently enjoys (vastly smaller talent pool, for starters), but it would still exist nonetheless, perhaps on a similar scale to curling.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
User avatar
KnowItAll
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7458
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Delta

I believe they are making clarification comments for new USA viewers who are watching games on a USA network.
Every day that passes is one you can't get back
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4309
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Not all games are broadcast to the USA yet I cannot really tell from the TSN broadcast which ones are Canada only and which ones are also going to the US. So TSN is not pandering to a US audience. :thup:

The NFL is the richest most successful sports league in N.A. and as such it is a marketing juggernaut so using the NFL as a frame of reference seems natural to me and folly to pretend that is doesn't exist.

TSN knows what they are doing and since they also broadcast NFL games, I wouldn't expect any changes to the current broadcasts.
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

KnowItAll wrote:I believe they are making clarification comments for new USA viewers who are watching games on a USA network.
I don't mind that sort of situation but they should explicitly point out that they are doing so ("for American viewers tuning in on network XYZ..." or some such) as far as rules differences go and they should be as sparing about it as possible. Too often I feel like they're explaining as much to the league's principal Canadian audience and it comes off as a concession that even in its own country the CFL is a second banana. And in some cases, over-apologetic, handwringing talk about CFL/NFL differences isn't even necessary — like with invoking roster talk to expound on a great special teams play.

And here's a parallel I'd like to draw. I don't watch NCAA football, but I'm aware that there are some rule differences between NCAA/NFL play although I'm not fully versed on all the details. Now, NCAA is clearly a tier below the NFL — at least talent-wise, although in some cases it's actually on par or even exceeds the NFL in aspects like attendance. I'll gladly defer to someone like Lions4ever for a more definitive comment on this, but I suspect even in this case, NCAA commentators don't frame these differences in as deferential a fashion to the NFL (whether indirectly or not) as I find to be too commonplace in CFL coverage.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
User avatar
KnowItAll
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7458
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Delta

they often do point out the usa audience. they probably are getting in the habit of explaining at all games just in case.
Every day that passes is one you can't get back
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

DanoT wrote:Not all games are broadcast to the USA yet I cannot really tell from the TSN broadcast which ones are Canada only and which ones are also going to the US. So TSN is not pandering to a US audience. :thup:
Sometimes the PBP man will bid an ex nihilo hello to US viewers (with no rules-related reason for doing so), and I tend to associate this mostly with Rod Black for some reason; I've noticed it a few times in recent years.
The NFL is the richest most successful sports league in N.A. and as such it is a marketing juggernaut so using the NFL as a frame of reference seems natural to me and folly to pretend that is doesn't exist.

TSN knows what they are doing and since they also broadcast NFL games, I wouldn't expect any changes to the current broadcasts.
You see, this is precisely my point. We're so inculcated with this type of talk that we barely even notice it or question the need for it. I'm not saying to pretend that it doesn't exist, but rather let's just be more pro-active in presenting our game on its own terms, like in the examples I gave in the OP. There will be times when reference to the NFL, whether direct or indirect, is unavoidable; I do get that. But this is no reason to be so deferential as we've grown accustomed to seeing. I believe in the long run the cumulative effect is to (unnecessarily) weaken the perception of the CFL.

In a recent post re: the Vikings/Peterson controversy notahomer invoked the name of Frank Luntz and his views on how the judicious use of the right words can enhance popular opinion of your message. I think a bit of that philosophy could be helpful to the CFL.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

Thankfully there are lots of FOOTBALL players that do respect and admire our CFL..... In a weird way it seems a shame because the ones who carry the most cachet are the Fluties and Trestmans and Wakes (and Ackles too!). Flutie, Trestman and Wake are three EXCELLENT examples, IMO, of guys more than GREAT enough to succeed in the NFL but it took a true opportunity from our CFL for them to be given a chance. Considering some of the guys who made it as HeadCoaches in the NFL, why did it take success from Trestman in Montreal for him to get his shot?

Yesterday for example, I REALLY wanted to watch the Broncos/Seahawks matchup. But the Redblacks/Riders game was more important to me. There are so many ways where the NFL is the NUMBER ONE league, no matter what, IMO. NBA, NHL, MLB? IMO, they struggle to keep up, so I actually am happy that I'd rather watch what many may feel was a 'meaningless?' matchup simply because it wasn't meaningless to me.

Two cities who used to have teams named the Roughriders. One the capitol of Canada, the other many claim is the capital of CFL fandom. And it was a great game (maybe I'm biased because I love watching games that go into OT).

I'm going to try to be more CFL positive but it will be CFL positive. I find some fans of both leagues (I consider myself a fan of both) like to put the other league down and they are entitled to do so. But I have my reasons for enjoying both leagues, so based on your suggestion, I'm going to try and focus on what the CFL is and why I love it, rather than being so quick to call it progress when it gets bigger TV deals and becomes more alike its LARGER, but younger brother......
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

notahomer wrote:Thankfully there are lots of FOOTBALL players that do respect and admire our CFL..... In a weird way it seems a shame because the ones who carry the most cachet are the Fluties and Trestmans and Wakes (and Ackles too!). Flutie, Trestman and Wake are three EXCELLENT examples, IMO, of guys more than GREAT enough to succeed in the NFL but it took a true opportunity from our CFL for them to be given a chance. Considering some of the guys who made it as HeadCoaches in the NFL, why did it take success from Trestman in Montreal for him to get his shot?

Yesterday for example, I REALLY wanted to watch the Broncos/Seahawks matchup. But the Redblacks/Riders game was more important to me. There are so many ways where the NFL is the NUMBER ONE league, no matter what, IMO. NBA, NHL, MLB? IMO, they struggle to keep up, so I actually am happy that I'd rather watch what many may feel was a 'meaningless?' matchup simply because it wasn't meaningless to me.

Two cities who used to have teams named the Roughriders. One the capitol of Canada, the other many claim is the capital of CFL fandom. And it was a great game (maybe I'm biased because I love watching games that go into OT).

I'm going to try to be more CFL positive but it will be CFL positive. I find some fans of both leagues (I consider myself a fan of both) like to put the other league down and they are entitled to do so. But I have my reasons for enjoying both leagues, so based on your suggestion, I'm going to try and focus on what the CFL is and why I love it, rather than being so quick to call it progress when it gets bigger TV deals and becomes more alike its LARGER, but younger brother......
Interesting that you mentioned the TV contract as one of those implicit comparisons. To be honest I never really thought of that one and I'm not even sure if it even falls within the scope of my OP. Maybe, maybe not. I was thinking (mostly) of on-field stuff.

Also when I mentioned "we", I didn't really mean "we" as the CFL fan fraternity or Lionbackers members or anything including fans. I suppose I could have worded it better (kind of ironic considering the theme of this thread, huh? LOL), but I really meant the league itself and its media partners. This might sound silly but I was sort of imagining myself in a meeting with the BOG when I posed the subject question. But if my message happens to fall on receptive fan ears, then this would align with my aims and would also be quite satisfactory.

In retrospect, it would have been an interesting experiment to create a poll on here at the beginning of the month asking, "As a CFL fan, what do you think of when you think of Labour Day?", with options of (A) Edm @ Cgy, (B) Wpg @ Ssk, (C) Tor @ Ham, (D) Ott @ Mtl, (E) BC gets a bye week, (F) "The season really starts now." On this board, I suppose (E) would probably carry the day. But I suspect, even though I can't prove it, the last option would have garnered *some* response, and this would offer some credence to my original point that these negative messages are anchoring themselves into people's minds. This is NOT to criticise people who would internalise such ideas. Rather, the point is that any message repeated sufficiently often can eventually become accepted as fact.

I'd been pondering this matter for the last several weeks and your recent mention of Frank Luntz is what really consolidated my thoughts. I really think the league could benefit from some of his ideas by working with its media partners to more creatively avoid any unnecessary invocation (direct or indirect) of the NFL. This comparison is one that the CFL will almost always come out of looking second best ("Our balls are bigger" notwithstanding), so it isn't the battlefield on which the league should be fighting to earn fan loyalty.

This falls under something we've talked about before: psychological framing, and it's something the league should consider in shaping its message; it should strive to frame its value proposition on its own terms. They've already hewed to this philosophy as an Oct 2012 article in Financial Post Magazine discussed; unfortunately the link to it that I posted in this old thread has died and I can't locate it elsewhere. But I think it's time now for their media partners to get on board with this line of thinking as per the examples in my OP.

EDIT: I just thought of another thing I'd like to see changed. I'd like to see the phrases "extra point", "point after" or "point after touchdown" — all of which are NFL neologisms that I've always found clumsy and weak — stricken from the CFL lexicon and universally replaced with the more terse and official-sounding term "convert". I have several 1990s-era editions of the league's annual almanac that use this term exclusively, but now I see some of those other awkward phrases on the CFL's own play-by-play data pages . Rick Ball always favoured this term ("BC takes the lead 26-23 with the convert to come") and I've noticed Rintoul has also mostly done so to this point (for most of the seven TDs he's had to call so far). I noticed at the game on Friday Matt Baker using "point after" in his PA commentary. Matt, I see that you read this board at times (thanks for dropping by!) and even post the occasional comment. Not to single you out or trying to tell you how to do your job or anything, but how 'bout doing this longtime CFL fan a solid and going with "convert", huh? :thup: :)
Last edited by sj-roc on Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12581
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

I'll bite and admit that I'd vote for (F), "the season really starts now." All of the other responses are appropriate too but this one is overarching. It's a time-honoured phrase that has stood the test of time, along with other such as "it's not how you start; it's how you finish" and "it's a marathon, not a sprint." Rivalry games are often so-called four-pointers, divisional clashes that go a long way toward determining playoff positions. This year is a purrfect illustration of the shift in magnitude after Labour Day. For the first half of the season, the league scheduled a lot of interlocking games. As it turned out, these games tended to be low scoring, with great disparity in results between East and West. It's no coincidence that since Labour Day, games have tended to be higher scoring, with more competitive balance and great entertainment value. The playoff races in both divisions have tightened and become real races.

I'm as CFL-positive as anyone. I live for the CFL season and don't really follow the other league. Admitting that the second half of the CFL season is the key to success is no different from admitting that the NHL playoffs are what really counts, not the regular season. There's nothing negative about either statement. To me, that's just stating the obvious.
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

sj-roc wrote:
KnowItAll wrote:I believe they are making clarification comments for new USA viewers who are watching games on a USA network.
I don't mind that sort of situation but they should explicitly point out that they are doing so ("for American viewers tuning in on network XYZ..." or some such) as far as rules differences go and they should be as sparing about it as possible. Too often I feel like they're explaining as much to the league's principal Canadian audience and it comes off as a concession that even in its own country the CFL is a second banana. And in some cases, over-apologetic, handwringing talk about CFL/NFL differences isn't even necessary — like with invoking roster talk to expound on a great special teams play.

And here's a parallel I'd like to draw. I don't watch NCAA football, but I'm aware that there are some rule differences between NCAA/NFL play although I'm not fully versed on all the details. Now, NCAA is clearly a tier below the NFL — at least talent-wise, although in some cases it's actually on par or even exceeds the NFL in aspects like attendance. I'll gladly defer to someone like Lions4ever for a more definitive comment on this, but I suspect even in this case, NCAA commentators don't frame these differences in as deferential a fashion to the NFL (whether indirectly or not) as I find to be too commonplace in CFL coverage.
To be clear, the NCAA is also a Tier below the CFL in talent. Also the CFL commentators should be saying that the player only requires one toe in bounds, if they want to emphasize the catch.
Entertainment value = an all time low
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

sj-roc wrote:...("Our balls are bigger" notwithstanding)....
I don't believe that this is true now (or since the mid-1980s). There was a time when the Canadian ball was slightly bigger (mainly just slightly fatter), but I think the balls are--within tolerances--the same size now. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Also, about the word "convert." I think that this term has been used from early days in the Canadian game, having its origins in rugby. So, I don't think it arose in response to the other terms mentioned--"point after touchdown" (or PAT), "point after," etc. I don't think we hear the word "convert" in the American game much, if at all, although you do occasionally hear "conversion." In some ways, the term "point after" is the most unambiguous, since "conversion" is also used in the phrase "3rd down conversion," etc. We also hear that a team "converted on 2nd down" in the CFL.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

A lot of the terms have found their way North. Recent example is the term "jet sweep". Noticed that Scott Rintoul is referring the Shawn Gore end around play is now the "jet sweep". Are announcers doing it to make the play sound more technical than it really is or is to make them sound more knowledgeable ?
User avatar
Robbie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:13 pm
Location: 卑詩體育館或羅渣士體育館

At least the CFL officials, both the executives off the field and the referees on the field still use their own terminologies and have not been influenced by the NFL.

1. The CFL still uses their orange penalty flags and didn't change to yellow penalty flags.

2. When announcing penalties, the referee will refer to the team "Edmonton number #" instead of the NFL where he announces "Offence number #".

3. The CFL overtime procedure. While they did change the regulations from when they had two 5-minute halves, they did not change because of NFL influence.

4. Maintaining the rouge.

There was one season in 2009 in which the CFL changed the scoring system with regards to after a successful field goal in which the team scored against must receive a kickoff as opposed to choosing to scrimmage from their own 35-yard line. I wonder if that was changed because of influence from the NFL. In any case, it was unpopular and was quickly changed back to the original system in 2010.
祝加拿大加式足球聯賽不列颠哥伦比亚卑詩雄獅隊今年贏格雷杯冠軍。此外祝溫哥華加人隊贏總統獎座·卡雲斯·甘保杯·史丹利盃。還每年祝溫哥華白頭浪隊贏美國足球大联盟杯。不要忘記每年祝溫哥華巨人贏西部冰球聯盟冠軍。
改建後的卑詩體育館於二十十一年九月三十日重新對外開放,首場體育活動為同日舉行的加拿大足球聯賽賽事,由主場的卑詩雄獅隊以三十三比二十四擊敗愛民頓愛斯基摩人隊。
祝你龍年行大運。
恭喜西雅图海鹰直到第四十八屆超級盃最終四十三比八大勝曾拿下兩次超級盃冠軍的丹佛野馬拿下隊史第一個超級盃冠軍。
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Robbie wrote:2. When announcing penalties, the referee will refer to the team "Edmonton number #" instead of the NFL where he announces "Offence number #".
I've always preferred use by officials of "offense" and "defense" over the teams' names in referring to a team for whatever reason. Although it doesn't represent any practical difference, it somehow seems more objective to me.
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

South Pender wrote:
sj-roc wrote:...("Our balls are bigger" notwithstanding)....
I don't believe that this is true now (or since the mid-1980s). There was a time when the Canadian ball was slightly bigger (mainly just slightly fatter), but I think the balls are--within tolerances--the same size now. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this.
My understanding is as follows:

Both leagues have historically had the same size specs for the ball, including tolerances, but the two leagues preferred to hew to opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum, with the CFL going bigger. This was the case in the Spalding J5V era (until 1994), after which the league switched to the Wilson product, at which point size distinctions more or less disappeared. Ironically, the adoption of the OBAB marketing slogan didn't come until after this change, in the Jeff Giles era.
Also, about the word "convert." I think that this term has been used from early days in the Canadian game, having its origins in rugby. So, I don't think it arose in response to the other terms mentioned--"point after touchdown" (or PAT), "point after," etc.
Eaxctly — whether or not you intended your comment in such way (prob not), I wasn't trying to imply this at all in my initial comment and it's all the more reason to use the word convert exclusively. It's the term that's been used in our game since day one and there's no compelling reason to change it, least of all because it seems to be in vogue in NFL circles. It goes back to the thrust of my OP that the league should present itself on its own terms without unnecessarily invoking the NFL. Besides, it's simply a more compact phrase and also has the added benefit of encompassing its two-point variety that those other phrases don't offer. Mind you, this wasn't a big deal over most of NFL history since they didn't adopt the 2PC until 1994 (the CFL adopted it in 1975).
I don't think we hear the word "convert" in the American game much, if at all, although you do occasionally hear "conversion." In some ways, the term "point after" is the most unambiguous, since "conversion" is also used in the phrase "3rd down conversion," etc. We also hear that a team "converted on 2nd down" in the CFL.
Yes, the NFL seems to favour the word conversion over convert to designate the post-TD scoring play, but I prefer to reserve this term for the latter usage you've noted. I really don't care at all for the "point after" term. It's clumsy, it doesn't encompass its two-point variety and makes the play seem like an afterthought, although I suppose at least for the largely automatic one-point variety of convert, it's a fair point (no pun intended) to argue that it has more or less become such. The XFL in its brief existence certainly took this view in adopting only the TD variety of convert and assigning it just one point, while entirely eschewing its much higher percentage FG variety. They probably even had their own "edgy" name for this play but I don't recall what it would have been; the WFL a generation before had adopted the same convert philosophy and referred to it as an "Action Point".
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Post Reply