Unless you can shut down the internet and people's ability to communicate, don't count on liberals listening to arguments for smaller government or conservatives entertaining arguments for why they should give up their cars and move to downtown highrises because of global warming. You can't discount the fact that there is a sizable contingent who don't like self government at all and believe academic and Hollywood elites should do all the decision making.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
- Thread starter joshzz
- Start date
Oh come on gr8oldies. Select [brain on], Select [focus on topic], Select [think and type creatively]
You didn't respond to the topic of WHO and HOW we do it. You simply expressed your personal political bias in a more sophisticated set of words than we sometimes read around here. ;D
You didn't respond to the topic of WHO and HOW we do it. You simply expressed your personal political bias in a more sophisticated set of words than we sometimes read around here. ;D
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:If we don't, then we eventual devolve into a civilization of mob rule like we assume existed in the stone age. Or empires that ruled so many people during the last 2,000 years.
To paraphrase what gr8oldies said, as long as you have individualized, personalized communications, there is no way to encourage or compell people to hear both sides of issues. We can't even get that kind of respect in the halls of Congress. How much bi-partisanship do you see? How much compromise? None. That sets the tone for the entire country.
We have been encouraged and compelled to embrace our own individuality, rather than the common elements of our culture. We have multiple holidays that promote those cultural identities of race, ethnicity, and religion, rather than seeking some form of unity. And the internet has become the new meeting house, where we only have to associate with people and opinions we like. I can customize news serices so I only read stories about topics I'm interested in. If I'm not interested in the Olympics, I don't have to know who won Gold Medals today. If I'm not interested in Afghanistan, I don't have to read about the latest military efforts there. If I don't want to know about Kwansa or gay marriage or abortion, I can elect not to read the latest stories on those issues. And if our public school system deals with any of those issues, you can bet the school board will hear about it from people who don't want their kids to learn about it. We even had people who refused to allow their children meet Obama because of his views. That would never have happened in the past.
The problem is the same one we has that caused the civil war: intolerance. People simply can't tolerate opposing views, and they get violent when opposing views are presented. The word tolerance doesn't mean you have to accept another view, or compromise one's point of view. It simply means to allow others to have their opposing views. That's impossible today. That's at the heart of the Middle East crisis. And it's tearing this country apart as well.
So sure...oh great idealist Goat, be my guest and try to use the people's airwaves to promote compromise and tolerance. I wish you well. But I'm reminded of the man of La Mancha.
Let me add that to force or require broadcast media to be fair, without making the same requirement of all other media, is (in a word) unfair. It is a placebo to the real problem, and it will only hasten the demise of broadcasting. We can see how the ignorance of fairness has increased ratings. It stands to reason that forced fairness would have the opposite effect. And that is unfair.
TheBigA said:So sure...oh great idealist Goat, be my guest and try to use the people's airwaves to promote compromise and tolerance. I wish you well. But I'm reminded of the man of La Mancha.
No, no, no. Instead of idealist, that should have been "So sure...oh great optimist Goat,....." ;D
There are really two streams of thought all tangled up in this thread.
One is the never ending human conflict of idealism and optimism vs. fatalism and pessimism.
(I tend to be pessimistic about converting everyone else in joining me as an optimist.)
That leaves us with the other line of thought that gets trampled in the conversation by the fatalists. What is the scope of ability of radio? What is the scope of ability of human speech?
Apparently radio is a fraud. We send sales people out who con merchants into spending money to do the impossible. We tell out advertisers that through radio advertising we can take people who believe only in Fords and get them to accept the idea they would consider owning a Chevy. But we know that won't work because people will not listen to that which they do not agree with.
It's a fraud every time radio accepts money to tell the consumers of Coors that somehow they would enjoy the product of Budweiser. We know people do not listen to what they do not currently believe.
From the era of the Great Depression through the entry into World War II there was this voice that came through the radio and spoke to people who believed in isolationism and libertarian ideals. We know it was a fraud for FDR to encourage people to concern themselves with helping one another conquer the economic collapse and to embrace war for the sake of people in Europe. We know that couldn't work for people refuse to listen to that which is disagreeable to them.
Finally the American populace got headed in another direction when some Hollywood type named Regan used his voice to convince people the nation should take a new turn and head back in the direction of libertarian thinking. We know that effort was a fraud because people do not listen to that which they do not want to hear.
So I guess today's radio managers are the truly honest humans. They know that all the people want is distorted grungy clipped-audio resembling music with crude and rude lyrics. I think I shall email the Pope today and suggest that all of today's radio executives should be slated for sainthood by the church. Only they are honest enough to know that radio can never say something to a listener that they know they don't want to hear.... or they have never heard before.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have some advertising copy to write. Boy do I hate the day I agreed to write copy for Toyota.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:Apparently radio is a fraud. We send sales people out who con merchants into spending money to do the impossible. We tell out advertisers that through radio advertising we can take people who believe only in Fords and get them to accept the idea they would consider owning a Chevy. But we know that won't work because people will not listen to that which they do not agree with.
There is no fairness doctrine for advertising, so that's a bit off the subject.
However, ad agencies would say that older audiences are less likely to change buying habits because of advertising. That's why agencies target younger buyers.
We have been encouraged and compelled to embrace our own individuality, rather than the common elements of our culture. We have multiple holidays that promote those cultural identities of race, ethnicity, and religion, rather than seeking some form of unity. And the internet has become the new meeting house, where we only have to associate with people and opinions we like. I can customize news serices so I only read stories about topics I'm interested in. If I'm not interested in the Olympics, I don't have to know who won Gold Medals today. If I'm not interested in Afghanistan, I don't have to read about the latest military efforts there. If I don't want to know about Kwansa or gay marriage or abortion, I can elect not to read the latest stories on those issues. And if our public school system deals with any of those issues, you can bet the school board will hear about it from people who don't want their kids to learn about it. We even had people who refused to allow their children meet Obama because of his views. That would never have happened in the past.
The problem is the same one we has that caused the civil war: intolerance. People simply can't tolerate opposing views, and they get violent when opposing views are presented. The word tolerance doesn't mean you have to accept another view, or compromise one's point of view. It simply means to allow others to have their opposing views. That's impossible today./color]
I agree with you that intolerance is part of the problem. You will find intolerance by both sides of the political isle. Extreme Liberals are intolerant of religious people and their beliefs. Extreme Conservatives are intolerant of gay and lesbians.
The abortion issue is another example of where both sides dig in their feet and refuse to budge. Liberal pro-abortion (aka pro-choice) want to allow all any and all abortions even partial birth abortion where as of I've yet to find a medical doctor or nurse give me an explanation of how doing a breach birth (feet first) and leaving just an inch or two of the head in the mother while they kill the baby can save a mothers life. On the other hand, there are the Conservative pro-life (aka anti-abortion) folks who want to forbid any and all abortions even if the life of the mother is in danger, or for rape or incest. These two extremes tend to not want to budge at all so after 36 years since Roe v Wade it still is being fought. There others who'd accept abortion for life of the mother, rape, and incest, but do not believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control, especially since we now have the morning after pill available.
Being selective in what we read in the news didn't start with the internet, that's always been one of the great things about the newspaper too. Not interested in politics, then you can skip those stories. Not interested in the Stock Market, skip the business section, etc.
As far as the public schools go, many of these hot button issues are viewed by many as moral issues (gay lifestyles, sexuality, pro or anti abortion, right and wrong, creationism vs evolution, etc). As parents, we should have the right to determine what our kids are taught once you get past reading, writing, and arithmetic. Gay parents won't want their adopted children (or kids from a previous heterosexual marriage) being taught that the gay lifestyle is wrong anymore than Straight parents or Religious parents wouldn't want their kids being taught that the gay lifestyle is a fine alternative way to live. Just maybe these sort of hot button issues shouldn't be taught unless you teach both sides of the issue in a totally unbiased way, which isn't real easy to do as most people including teachers have a bias. This is why many families today home school their children, that way they can have better control over what stuff their kids are taught.
The point is, as someone said, you can't force people to read or listen to another point of view. So yes, they will selectively tune in to listen, watch, or read what interests them. That isn't new, but is far more available today with the internet.
The problem is the same one we has that caused the civil war: intolerance. People simply can't tolerate opposing views, and they get violent when opposing views are presented. The word tolerance doesn't mean you have to accept another view, or compromise one's point of view. It simply means to allow others to have their opposing views. That's impossible today./color]
I agree with you that intolerance is part of the problem. You will find intolerance by both sides of the political isle. Extreme Liberals are intolerant of religious people and their beliefs. Extreme Conservatives are intolerant of gay and lesbians.
The abortion issue is another example of where both sides dig in their feet and refuse to budge. Liberal pro-abortion (aka pro-choice) want to allow all any and all abortions even partial birth abortion where as of I've yet to find a medical doctor or nurse give me an explanation of how doing a breach birth (feet first) and leaving just an inch or two of the head in the mother while they kill the baby can save a mothers life. On the other hand, there are the Conservative pro-life (aka anti-abortion) folks who want to forbid any and all abortions even if the life of the mother is in danger, or for rape or incest. These two extremes tend to not want to budge at all so after 36 years since Roe v Wade it still is being fought. There others who'd accept abortion for life of the mother, rape, and incest, but do not believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control, especially since we now have the morning after pill available.
Being selective in what we read in the news didn't start with the internet, that's always been one of the great things about the newspaper too. Not interested in politics, then you can skip those stories. Not interested in the Stock Market, skip the business section, etc.
As far as the public schools go, many of these hot button issues are viewed by many as moral issues (gay lifestyles, sexuality, pro or anti abortion, right and wrong, creationism vs evolution, etc). As parents, we should have the right to determine what our kids are taught once you get past reading, writing, and arithmetic. Gay parents won't want their adopted children (or kids from a previous heterosexual marriage) being taught that the gay lifestyle is wrong anymore than Straight parents or Religious parents wouldn't want their kids being taught that the gay lifestyle is a fine alternative way to live. Just maybe these sort of hot button issues shouldn't be taught unless you teach both sides of the issue in a totally unbiased way, which isn't real easy to do as most people including teachers have a bias. This is why many families today home school their children, that way they can have better control over what stuff their kids are taught.
The point is, as someone said, you can't force people to read or listen to another point of view. So yes, they will selectively tune in to listen, watch, or read what interests them. That isn't new, but is far more available today with the internet.
TheBigA said:There is no fairness doctrine for advertising, so that's a bit off the subject.
I was not addressing the Fairness Doctrine and advertising. I was addressing this canard that people keep dragging out that you have to broadcast the candy our childish-minded audiences want to hear. They will not hear a topic and consider changing their minds when they already know what they wish to believe. More candy please!
I then suggested that radio advertising to any age of audience is some kind of fraud. After all we know it won't work. They will not hear a topic and consider changing their minds when they already know what they wish to believe. More candy please!
It was not OFF THE SUBJECT. It was pure SARCASM. And it proved my point quite well. If you don't like the brand of automobile I advertise on the radio, you will accuse my station and my sponsor of being OFF THE SUBJECT.
So it must be a fraud to charge and advertiser a fee for something that is OFF THE SUBJECT and doesn't work.
Goat I see your point but at the same time I see apples and oranges. If I'm not in the market for a car, there isn't any amount of advertising that's going to persuade me to visit a dealership. When the old car needs one too many repairs, that's when I might decide whether to visit dealership A instead of B. I don't believe that people are quite as likely to be "once a Ford, always a Ford"
people as in the past. In fact a friend who was a lifetime Dodge customer who came from a family of Dodge customers just bought a Honda. Any product needs to make the sale every time; it is no longer a given. Companies are spending huge amounts on social media to enter the conversations people are having about their products. I kind of hear you saying that radio stations should not be programming what people want but what they "need".Someone should be telling people their beliefs are wrong. That free market conservative should be compelled to consider that capatalism is a system that exploits people and greater government control and much higher taxes are what are needed. The liberal who believes that corporations are the root of all evil must hear and consider that corporations employ people and contribute to the greater good. Those Christian station listeners certainly should have to listen to all the evidence that Jesus never existed, or that Muhammed is the true prophet. Maybe you can figure out how to compel that Daily Kos reader to read World Net Daily and not laugh but I doubt it. The only way I know how to do it with radio is run for federal office. Run for congress and any radio or TV station has to sell you time and can't censor the message. You can go on the conservative station and call all the listeners idiots. You can show graphic abortion pictures on TV. There is a guy who runs for Congress every election just to run spots on WLW to rail against Israel and promote the theory that Israel and George W Bush flew the planes into the World Trade Center by remote control. Listeners complain but WLWs hands are tied
people as in the past. In fact a friend who was a lifetime Dodge customer who came from a family of Dodge customers just bought a Honda. Any product needs to make the sale every time; it is no longer a given. Companies are spending huge amounts on social media to enter the conversations people are having about their products. I kind of hear you saying that radio stations should not be programming what people want but what they "need".Someone should be telling people their beliefs are wrong. That free market conservative should be compelled to consider that capatalism is a system that exploits people and greater government control and much higher taxes are what are needed. The liberal who believes that corporations are the root of all evil must hear and consider that corporations employ people and contribute to the greater good. Those Christian station listeners certainly should have to listen to all the evidence that Jesus never existed, or that Muhammed is the true prophet. Maybe you can figure out how to compel that Daily Kos reader to read World Net Daily and not laugh but I doubt it. The only way I know how to do it with radio is run for federal office. Run for congress and any radio or TV station has to sell you time and can't censor the message. You can go on the conservative station and call all the listeners idiots. You can show graphic abortion pictures on TV. There is a guy who runs for Congress every election just to run spots on WLW to rail against Israel and promote the theory that Israel and George W Bush flew the planes into the World Trade Center by remote control. Listeners complain but WLWs hands are tied
You guys are all hung up on what will be FORCED upon radio by reinstating the docterine. When it was in effect none of what you suggest occured. Look at it this way, Broadcasting should offer an opportunity for all views to be presented, not necessarly during the same time period or for the same length. As long as an effort is being made to encourage all sides to speak their mind over broadcast mediums the intent of the docterine is met
gr8oldies said:I kind of hear you saying that radio stations should not be programming what people want but what they "need".Someone should be telling people their beliefs are wrong. That free market conservative should be compelled to consider that capatalism is a system that exploits people and greater government control and much higher taxes are what are needed. The liberal who believes that corporations are the root of all evil must hear and consider that corporations employ people and contribute to the greater good. Those Christian station listeners certainly should have to listen to all the evidence that Jesus never existed, or that Muhammed is the true prophet. Maybe you can figure out how to compel that Daily Kos reader to read World Net Daily and not laugh but I doubt it. The only way I know how to do it with radio is run for federal office.
CaptBob92: I managed a station during the Fairness Doctrine. I did a daily talk show that plunged into controversial topics like a bull in a china shop. I was the guy who had the conversations with the attorney when we had demands from people for "equal time" or "balance time" or retractions or what ever. First, I agree with you. The Fairness Doctrine in it's time was a bore, a big yawn for the most part. Second, I disagree with you that digging up the Fairness Doctrine from the dead would work today. Times have changed. Economic forces within society have changed. If. Big IF please. IF we need something today, I would propose that the Fairness Doctrine is NOT practical or useful today. The recent movement I have observed is to bring back the NAME Fairness Doctrine, but give it a new engine, new style tires, new body styling, etc. etc. etc. Even if congress could design a NEW policy totally appropriate for our circumstances today, giving it the name Fairness Doctrine will doom the effort.
gr8oldies: The part of your post that I copied here may well be The Poster Child for the logic I offer. Your first sentence is "on target" but framed too tightly. Schools do not teach ONLY what students WANT to hear. Good churches do not preach ONLY what people WANT to hear. Good parents do not tell and discipline their children with ONLY what they want to hear.
I have no problem with the business and entertainment concept that radio has an opportunity and from a financial survival view, an obligation to include "the good stuff", the candy, the feel good material. You don't kind of hear me saying that radio station should NOT be programming what people want. What you should hear me saying is that when there is the appearance of a weak point or a failure in the implementation of capitalism, worthy and useful media of all kinds will report that event. Maybe discuss that event. Maybe arrange PRO and CON side by side essays on the Op Ed page of the paper. Invite spokesmen representing all sides of the discussion to have a dignified, intellectually honest review of the situation. The obligation is to find a format that makes it inviting enough and scheduled during peoples waking hours so that even you would have the interest and patience to hear what is said. It would not be the job of the media (in my perfect world ;D ) to change your mind. It is simply their job to serve up this information-meal in such a way you would sit there and think: "Now I understand why those people I disagree with feel the way they do. They, too, have SOME valid points."
In the case of the religious station, I would put burdens and obligations upon the pastor, upon the church, as well as the station. If. Big IF please. IF there is legitimate and respectable variations in theological thinking within the religious group making the broadcast, then the broadcast station, the "preacher" and the church or religious corporate body sponsoring the broadcast probably need to see to it that the INTERNAL struggles over theology be presented. The fact that Christianity and Islam may be competitors and have opposing claims on truth is beyond what you and I are ready to discuss. Substitute the name of any group you like here, but for the sake of discussion: If a Baptist speaker is on the air and his/her Baptist group has an annual convention coming up in a few months where they will tackle a severely controversial topic and the on-air guy does not help the listener understand what the struggle is all about, shame on him/her, shame on the station, shame on the religious group that controls the validity of the ordination of the person speaking.
I understand your humor about the Daily Kos and World Net Daily News. When I run into the followers of either of those publications and they want to engage in conversation of the day and all they know is what they glean from ONE and ONLY one of those two sources, I worry about the future of our nation.
When I got up this morning and read in my paper that Evan Bayh of Indiana has decided to not run for re-election and says he no longer wants to be part of a congress made up of too many people who are purely Daily Kos and purely World Net Daily News, I see a little bit our civilization die.
I have never been a newspaper man. I don't know how to address "my fellow newspaper people". Same for TV, magazines, etc. I understand a little bit about radio. I think we could have a little part in getting people to sit down and enjoy a beer while talking to someone with different views.
One thing besides the internet that is making hearing various points of view more accessible is digital TV. I use my old roof antenna that I bought 16 years ago (all you need is the converter to go from flat wire to cable to plug into the back of your TV and the Digital converter box, if your TV isn't already set up for digital TV). I bought both at my local Radio Shack. Many of the broadcast stations do use their side bands. We have two PBS stations, both offer music/arts/documentaries/commentaries/etc continuously on those side bands. Neither PBS station offers any of the same programming so it truly is like having two different sets of stations. The religious stations also are doing that where they offer not just preachers, but religious themed movies, music, etc. So even if you only have an antenna and are not using cable/satellite, your choices have been expanded. Even the commercial stations offer 24/7 weather (one via accuweather with local forecasts every 10 minutes).
HD radio could also be used that way where a station, could offer the usual Beck/Rush/Hannity gap fest on their AM station and offer Rhodes/Press/Schultz on their FM-HD-2 station, or the opposite way around if the AM is a lib talker. Point is, with all this new technology there are more ways to hear and see different opinions.
Again though, most people are NOT interested in hearing points of view they disagree with, be they liberals or conservatives, religious or atheist. How many people read both Drudge and Huffington Post? Usually one or the other, yet both are equally available, in fact Drudge provides Huffington's link on their web site. Drudge offers both conservative and liberal columnists. How many readers read both sides? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. My guess isthat far more people watch, listen, read the Hollywood gossip crap as they follow the escapades of all the glamorous self centered stars who inhabit that part of the world. For me, that stuff is crap, but that's what freedom is all about. The freedom to read, listen, view, what you want. This also includes worshiping God. Each person must make that choice in how or even if they'll worship God ( I'm using the generic as the definition of God isn't uniform for all as in Jesus, Buddah, Allah, etc,). Now, I may be a Christian and have standards as to what I'll read, listen, or view, based on my walk with Christ, but I'd also defend your right to do likewise and read, listen, view whatever you desire, and would hope you'd defend my right to do so as well. That's part of what our American freedom is all about.
HD radio could also be used that way where a station, could offer the usual Beck/Rush/Hannity gap fest on their AM station and offer Rhodes/Press/Schultz on their FM-HD-2 station, or the opposite way around if the AM is a lib talker. Point is, with all this new technology there are more ways to hear and see different opinions.
Again though, most people are NOT interested in hearing points of view they disagree with, be they liberals or conservatives, religious or atheist. How many people read both Drudge and Huffington Post? Usually one or the other, yet both are equally available, in fact Drudge provides Huffington's link on their web site. Drudge offers both conservative and liberal columnists. How many readers read both sides? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. My guess isthat far more people watch, listen, read the Hollywood gossip crap as they follow the escapades of all the glamorous self centered stars who inhabit that part of the world. For me, that stuff is crap, but that's what freedom is all about. The freedom to read, listen, view, what you want. This also includes worshiping God. Each person must make that choice in how or even if they'll worship God ( I'm using the generic as the definition of God isn't uniform for all as in Jesus, Buddah, Allah, etc,). Now, I may be a Christian and have standards as to what I'll read, listen, or view, based on my walk with Christ, but I'd also defend your right to do likewise and read, listen, view whatever you desire, and would hope you'd defend my right to do so as well. That's part of what our American freedom is all about.
CaptBob92 said:As long as an effort is being made to encourage all sides to speak their mind over broadcast mediums the intent of the docterine is met
That may be how the law is applied in Mayberry, but it's not how the feds play the game. They want checklists and percentages. And then they want punishment if the law isn't followed. Because if there's no consequence, most people won't follow the law.
I think if there were a revived FD, it would be intentionally vague. It would be a matter of "community groups" having to file complaints and the owners having to prove by using calculators and spreadsheets whether they were being fair or not. That creates billable hours for lawyers.
gr8oldies said:That creates billable hours for lawyers.
Which is exactly how the FCC thinks. There are very few broadcasters there. Fewer engineers. But lots of lawyers and political wonks and PhDs.
And it's very representative of the rest of government, why so many legislators are quitting.
Or...maybe it won't be that way. maybe too vauge or not worth the challenge for eqaul access....I don't care what one side or the other wants promoted,,,present it ALL why be afraid? arn't you treading on peoples rights by using public airwaves to present only one view and not all sides?
CaptBob92 said:arn't you treading on peoples rights by using public airwaves to present only one view and not all sides?
No. But if you feel they are, take them to court and see what the Supremes think. It would make an interesting first amendment case. It's this kind of thinking that kept controversial subjects off the radio for 60 years. Radio has no obligation to cover all sides, play all songs, speak in all languages, or accept all sponsors.
I don't remember controversial subjects ever being kept off radio not in my lifetime.
It just seems that if you are givin the priviledge of using the public airways to make money it's a fair trade off to allow all sides of a subject to be discussed. Not necessarly at the same time or for the same amount of time. But still present all sides.
Your right, there is no obligation and I believe that's wrong. I posted earlier why the idea that there are plenty of media outlets to dispence all views is a fantisy.
Why can't the other side be discussed late at night as opposed to not at all? Remember, there is a difference between getting away with not presenting all sides and haveing the integrety to present both sides.
It just seems that if you are givin the priviledge of using the public airways to make money it's a fair trade off to allow all sides of a subject to be discussed. Not necessarly at the same time or for the same amount of time. But still present all sides.
Your right, there is no obligation and I believe that's wrong. I posted earlier why the idea that there are plenty of media outlets to dispence all views is a fantisy.
Why can't the other side be discussed late at night as opposed to not at all? Remember, there is a difference between getting away with not presenting all sides and haveing the integrety to present both sides.
CaptBob92 said:It just seems that if you are givin the priviledge of using the public airways to make money it's a fair trade off to allow all sides of a subject to be discussed.
The federal gov't licenses the airwaves to private companies. Once that happens, the airwaves are no longer public. The FCC clearly makes the licensees responsible for the decisions of what goes on the air, and leaves it to their discretion. With the exception of emergency use and other uses detailed in the law, the airwaves are basically the domain of the licensees.
And there is no way to handle "all sides of a subject." Everyone has their own opinion, and one could end up spending every hour of every day handling all the people who feel their sides have not been presented. It's very impractocal, and partly why it's never been required.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.