I have very little faith in the honesty and integrity of any institution in this country.
Journalism included. Pro gay rainbow liars all.

Once the Government becomes involved, it's good bye to the genuine, and hello corn flakes credentials. This approach is the ruination of an industry already in decline. Why? Because people know how to smell a rat from a mile off.

Talking to a mate this morning has given new credence to my attitude. He is a credentialed experienced worker in his field, which includes the mining industry. This important industry now openly distrusts credentials gained through private providers. Private providers in education, are the Government panacea for distancing itself from responsibility.

He is now forced to resit exams for worksite safety et al, as a requirement to a job application. This is “at-cost” to himself, in order for the job application to proceed.

Why? Government interference has created a black market environment, where safety training certification has become as believable as a credential from a Weet-Bix packet!

Journalism is already an unbelievable joke. Government interference can only sink the boat more quickly. Sooner the better.

He or She who hold the purse strings has control.

They can simply refuse to publish articles or change them.

You write what and articles that we want you to write about or look for a new job.

The problem is not the journalists it is the MSM outlets and who they are owned by and have to show elegance to.

Example the Washington post owned by Jeff Bazos (and Amazon) has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA but they will not mention this in stories as a conflict of interests.

I believe there's a case for publicly funded journalism ?

As for social media?

O.L.O is unique and stands almost alone as a site where anyone can voice an opinion.

And an important tool for the political class, who ought to acknowledge it as useful to their ambitions and provide support for emerging social media sites like O.L.O, open to the general public?

And valuable, inasmuch as they need to know what ordinary folks actually think rather than this or that media mogul!

And believe, ought to receive some of the public funding by government, ahead of the usual crystal ball gazers and predictors.

Who got it so wrong over brexit and the presidential probabilities, when Donald Trump was ruled out as a possible contender, even before he entered the race. Moreover, the quiet rage still boils away and pollies in love with themselves and their own romance stories? Need to feel the public pulse before they go off half cocked like Clinton!

And the usual and dying on its feet, mass media can't see this stuff coming? Given they've franchised the news and outsourced informed opinion?

Which by and large, I believe, tells these king makers what they want to hear, not what they need to hear!

And that's the reason we will always always, need publicly funded journalism and the frank and fearless reporting it still allows!

Would that we had some of it in places like Russia, Turkey and China.

Just to mention some of the more glaring examples of freedom of speech and freedom of the press along with a fully informed public! Ha, ha, ha, ha!

As for O.L.O? I'd quite happily pay a modest annual fee, just for the privilege!

Say $50.00 a quarter? Where and how do I send it?

I just don't buy papers anymore nor write letters to the editor that invariably hit the waste paper basket, if they don't share the views of the editor!

Who almost to a generic man, no longer understand, the most important voice in the room, is the one that disagrees with you!
Alan B.

Publicly funded like the ABC, over $1 Billion dollars mostly wasted.

Get your news from shock jocks, unbiased truth, leave it to public journalism and you end up with a race of who can tell the biggest lies. The more lies the bigger the audience.

This country would be far worse off if it were not for the ABC to hold persons included politicians to account.

But who is holding the ABC to account?

Do we really need public funded journalism?
Well I could come up with a reason why it may be essential.
Privately owned media corporations are essentially built around profits.
If they become unprofitable, they may sensationalise news to generate more sales or advertising revenue.
Sensationalised stories sell.

A public broadcaster would 'technically' be free from a needing to sensationalise headlines for increased sales and advertising revenue.

You mention quality news.
Well all I have to say is that there is a difference between 'facts' and 'narrative and conjecture'.
I'm going to say it twice to drive it home.
'FACTS' and 'NARRATIVE and CONJECTURE'
Also there is no longer any investigative journalism.

The reason Fox has good ratings is because people like Sean Hannity focus on facts and actually investigate and research stories, and the reason your 2500 journalists are all out of work is because they did not know investigating and researching stories means and they just repeated establishment talking points.

That linked article on the job looses was quite amusing.
The MSM blames fake news, when the MSM is fake news.
Ahahaha

If media want to push tired regurgitated disproven talking points, then they are only as credible as the idiots who are willing to buy into it.
It's no wonder your media is failing.

A billion a year to push perverted dogmas and made up narratives.

The following link explains why objective reporting has
never been more necessary:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/sunderland-objective-reproting-has-never-been-more-necessary/6764320

Newspapers will always pander to their readers prejudices.
Social and political leanings dictate who reads what.
That's why programs like Four Corners who do investigative
journalism are so important.

Never a truer word Foxy!
Cheers, Alan B.

Long live the ABC.
Beats the commercial crap hands down.
Even not having ads makes it worthwhile.

"The following link explains why objective reporting has
never been more necessary".

Well you never said a truer word Foxy, pity the last place likely to give it to us are the ones we all have to pay for, whether we want them or not, ABC, SBS etc.

We all know that any government service will be full of incompetent "B" graders on very much 'A" grade salaries, usually with private agendas, definitely the wrong people to look to for any truth or intelligent commentary

Foxy,

The main reason for governments to fund organisations is so that they can provide something that would not be provided otherwise. This may have been true when the ABC started and was the only broadcasting company, but is certainly not true today.

Objective reporting is important, however, by the measures that Alan Sunderland lays down in his article, no one is entirely objective including the ABC. The independent news agencies have particular biases with some more journalists leaning one way or the other. Newscorp leans to the conservative, and Fairfax leans to the left. The ABC which is entirely publicly funded leans further left even than Fairfax through its opinion pieces and selection of articles to cover or ignore.

The ABC should be privatised and compete in the real world.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You have a right to your opinion.

And I have the right to disagree with it.

Cheers.

Not only does the ABC duplicate FREE services that are already available from a diverse range of providers local, national and international providers,

BUT,

the ABC also duplicates the SBS.

"Mark Scott has used his final major speech as ABC managing director to ramp up the case for the ABC to merge with SBS, saying it would save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year and stop the broadcasters "tripping over each other".

Mr Scott, who departs the ABC in May, revealed he and former SBS managing director Shaun Brown had secretly agreed there should be a "friendly merger" between the two broadcasters and were prepared to make the case to government. Under one scenario discussed, Mr Scott would have been managing director of the merged organisation while the then chairman of SBS, Joseph Skrzynski, would have been the chair."
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mark-scotts-big-bang-goodbye-time-for-grown-up-conversation-on-abcsbs-merger-20160224-gn23gv.html

- Expensive duplication and it is only the highly paid sinecures available to the favoured that stymie overdue change and savings.

Put the money into public hospitals to shorten waiting lists. Or into extending free public vaccinations, for example, whooping cough.

Foxy,

You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Quote "The ABC should be privatised and compete in the real world."

They could not compete for add revenue with the repeated programs and mostly rubbish that has very low viewer ratings.

The purchase price would be cents on the dollar, then like all other privatized entities the purchaser would make lots of money by running it properly.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I totally agree.

That is why being informed and not just opinionated
is so important in a democracy.

If you only read newspapers that pander to your
political leanings then -
of course your views on the ABC are understandable.

The ABC is crucial because we are poorly served by
other parts of the media. Too often problems become
politicised, the science is discarded and rational
debate and decision making go out the window.

I've noticed that people critical of the ABC refer to it
as "the taxpayer-funded ABC". It is interesting to note
that the most recent independent Newspoll showed an
extra-ordinary level of support and enthusiasm for our
national broadcaster. That over 84% of Australians
believe that the national broadcaster provides a valuable
service to the community.

Voters need to be informed about issues complex in their
causation. Issues having major impacts on people and nations.
Issues that are costly and difficult to manage. Issues that
demand whole government responses.

Voters need to be informed about these issues to support
appropriate political and whole government policy solutions.

Australian voters depend upon the public broadcaster to present
the issues and the science in critical and clear ways so that
the voters can make the best decisions and help our
politicians and bureaucrats to do the same - spending taxpayer's
funds on policies and solutions that work for the good of the
country now and in the future.

Foxy - Sorry the burst your thinking but they are so biased on many issues is that really being informed or being manipulated?

Quote "over 84% of Australians believe that the national broadcaster provides a valuable service to the community." How did they arrive at that statistic? I was never asked.
Questions can be asked so as to give any desired answer surveys can be manipulated easily. Who did the survey, how many people did they ask, where was it done all these things and more greatly sway how the questions will be answered.

Dear Philip S.,

The survey was done by Newspoll.

Newspoll is an Australian opinion polling brand published
by The Australian and administered by Galaxy Research. It
has a long tradition of accuracy.

You can Google it for yourself on the web.

"over 84% of Australians believe that the national broadcaster provides a valuable service to the community"

Should that be Labor voters and should it be made plain that roughly half of that percentage responded 'somewhat good', which is open to interpretation? For some it could mean average or lower, 'somewhat' meaning: a little, a bit, a little bit, to a limited extent/degree, to a certain degree, to some extent, to some degree, (up) to a point, in some measure, rather, quite, within limits.

Frankly, no-one would be signing up for a marriage with a partner they only 'somewhat' cared for.

Next, when was that poll conducted? It was years ago, wasn't it? 2001?

So the poll isn't necessarily such a good result at all and nor is it recent and indicative of feeling now, but it is being represented as such.

In any event it is no measure at all of value for money but again, there are those who pretend that it does.

Where the outgoing CEO of the ABC states in an address to the Press Club that the ABC duplicates the SBS and there are substantial savings that could be made, that should have occasioned a full comprehensive audit of both bodies by the Australian National Audit Office.

If that survey was 2001 it is useless at this time as virtually all MSM outlets have lost a lot of there audience and there credibility.

Simply put they have been proven over and over again to be biased, peddling some fake news, subject to the meddling of politicians and big businesses

Foxy,

I read all available news sources, and the sum of the existing independent news sources provide a depth and breadth of news that service the public far better than the ABC without being a drain on the public purse.

As for bias the ABC stands well left of even Fairfax and its investigative journalism seems focused almost exclusively on subjects close to the hearts of left whingers, and runs silent on topics that are against the interests of left whingers.

For the few areas that the independent media fail to serve the public such as the rural areas, the ABC is withdrawing funding to service the inner cities.

If the ABC was flogged off, the public would not notice the difference and the new owners would actually pay tax instead of consuming it.

//I read all available news sources, and the sum of the existing independent news sources provide a depth and breadth of news that service the public far better than the ABC//

But the ABC do a lot more than news, SM. I usually get my news from newspapers rather than television or radio broadcasts, but I still quite like watching the ABC. Their programming is remarkably different to free-to-air commercial networks - I don't know if you've noticed, but about all that is available on commercial networks is wall-to-wall 'reality' crap, because it is cheap to produce.

Which is fine if you like that sort of thing, but some of us prefer quality comedy, drama and documentaries - all of which are noticeably absent from channels 7, 9, and 10 and fairly infrequent on SBS. The ABC are also widely recognised as having the best children's programming on Australian television, although I don't watch that. Also the ABC (and the BBC services I can access) are the only way to avoid ads during programs, which really get up my nose. Even if you buy pay TV the buggers put them in. For far less cost to the average taxpayer than a pay TV subscription, you get no ads in programs and quality shows. Sounds like good value to me, even if you get your news elsewhere.

Philip S, 'If that survey was 2001 it is useless at this time..'

It was 2001, getting on to 20 years ago. Which is not something that Foxy would be telling anyone. Which explains the lack of a link and 'Go find it yourself'. -Both hoping that the reader would swallow it and not be so inquisitive. It is so old that it takes some digging anyhow.

But the other limitations on interpretation were not mentioned either. The most significant being the use of the word 'somewhat' to get a far higher number of positives, 84% of declared Labor respondents in this case.

As mentioned earlier, 'somewhat' means: a little, a bit, a little bit, to a limited extent/degree, to a certain degree, to some extent, to some degree, (up) to a point, in some measure, rather, quite, within limits.

'Somewhat' ensures a high number of positives. 'Somewhat' requires a person to admit some value or vague liking somewhere. It is saying, 'Tick me, even if you can only find a tiny bit of potential positive, no matter how small, unlikely or contentious'.

A more recent and informed opinion is that of the outgoing CEO of the ABC states in an address to the Press Club that the ABC duplicates the SBS and there are substantial savings that ought be mad.

Which should have automatically triggered a full comprehensive audit of both bodies by the Australian National Audit Office. Accounting and audit standards are relevant.

That the ANAO comprehensive audit was side-stepped, neglected, is a question that should be directed at the audit committees of both ABC and SBS. There are very serious governance issues. They do have audit committees, don't they?

The Newspoll to which I
refer was done in late 2014.

If any other organisation had such high proportions of
people valuing it across the country it would be very
happy indeed because it is evidence that the National
Broadcaster is providing value for the money invested in
it.

Foxy

How come the same % was found? What about the link to the survey, because the same restrictions as before likely apply?

The qualifier 'somewhat', as in somewhat good, does not imply any judgement or assurance of value for money.

If the outgoing CEO of a private organisation stated publicly, let alone in an address to the National Press Club, that he had presided over duplication that wasted millions, he would expect to lose any bonus and there definitely would be interest from the audit committee, that would be answering questions itself why that was allowed to be. And what about the senior executive of the SBS?

So, Tony, you think that it is incumbent on a government to entertain the voters? That cooking shows are an essential service ranking with education and healthcare.

If the ABC is taking viewers from the other stations, then essentially it is taking advertising revenue and making it difficult for them to spend the money to create the shows that you like. Personally, I have not found the ABC shows to be much better than those of the independent channels.

Foxy, everything that is free is popular if the ABC had to subsidise its revenue with Ads etc, their viewership would drop.

Before leaving this discussion I would like to add
the following link:

http://thecoversation.com/public-broadcasters-play-a-major-cultural-role-beyond-the-market-26033

In it Prof. Graeme Turner tells us -

"What remains distinctive about the ABC and the SBS is that
their programming is not solely about producing entertainment
that will deliver market share... it is also about informing
the nation and serving the public good."

Prof. Turner tell us that "They do this most directly through,
among other things, investigative news and current affairs
such as "Four Corners," "Foreign Correspondent," and "Dateline",
through consumer watchdog programs such as "Media-Watch", "The
Checkout", and "The Gruen Transfer", and through inter-active
public issues programs such as "QandA" and "Insight".

"SBS, even more so than the ABC, has produced programs such as
"Go Back To Where You Came From," that explicitly challenge the
standard lines of public debate on major issues. None of these
programs, with the exception of "Gruen" would be financially
viable for a commercial network."

Prof. Turner goes on to say that "Democracy depends on freely
available and accessible information, and access should not
be dependent upon the citizen's capacity to pay."

"Our public broadcasters address a national public, not just a
market, or a targeted demographic, or a network. Through its
inclusion of the broad range of interests required for a
legitimate conversation with this public, it helps to normalise
the encounter with different points of view upon which a
functional liberal society depends."

"This does not only happen through information programming; it
also happens through drama and entertainment (think "Redfern Now").

"At its best, the ABC can play a major cultural role in helping
the Australian public better understand social, political and
cultural complexity. It may do this with varying focus, intensity
and success, and it may do it in varying ways (from "7.30" to
"Gardening Australia") but no other component of Australia's
media environment is charged with that task."

Foxy,

What a shocker, a left whinge professor of cultural studies thinks that having a left whinge public funded organisation is a good idea because of its left whinge cultural programs.

Choose which monster, the ABC or SBS, will eat the other and bring it back to core business of improved, participatory, local services for people in remote areas. The lion's share of that money should be going to helping those people get a leg into the digital revolution. Where they have the money to get the technology locally, they can best serve themselves.

Sell whatever of the public broadcaster is not needed.

Put the money into:

- lowering hospital waiting lists;

- into public vaccination programs Professor Ian Fraser's new vaccines, by way of example, http://www.tri.edu.au/vaccine-herpes-simplex-virus

and

- redesign of cities to make them healthier and sustainable environments for all people, not just for the well-heeled that are forcing the old and lower income out. The examples are already available overseas.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Professor Graeme Turner is one of the leading figures
in cultural and media studies not only in Australia
but internationally as well. His research has covered
a wide range of forms and media - literature, film,
television, radio, new media, journalism, and popular
culture. He's published over 23 books.
Yet you brush him aside as a "Left-Winge." To me
that indicates that you are simply assuming that
someone who puts up different opinions to yours they
are automatically classified as a "Leftie."
This is not as Cossomby pointed out so eloquently on
another discussion - either debate or discussion.
It's intellectual laziness. And usually discourages any
further debate because people find that they have better
things to do with their time. Labels belong on clothes
not on people. And politically, most people I know do
change their minds on various issues.

I shall leave you with the following links:

http://theconversation.com/its-our-abc-29525

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/voters-in-blueribbon-liberal-seats-strongly-support-abc-20150705-gi5eaq.html

Foxy you just don't get it.

No one who lives in the real world is interested in the opinion of some clown who could spend their whole life in the study of some make believe discipline such as "cultural and media studies". Only a powder puff could so waste their life.

You still keep quoting these lefty propaganda rags, as if they provide some real meaning. I am still waiting to see a reference from you of some respected organisation, even if only to refute it. It would show that you do read something other than propaganda from the left.

Foxy,

There are also many on the conservative side of politics who hold opinions with which I don't agree, and I don't brand them (ie Runner etc) as lefties. GT's writings show that his opinions are a far cry from the conservative and well into the Labor/green spectrum. You also ignored the other point that I made with respect to Cultural programming that GT has personal vested interest in the ABC funding his particular interest.

That these cultural programs are not generally found in private networks is generally because their viewership is sparse and ad revenue is also nearly non-existent. So the question is again, why should all taxpayers fund programs with a deliberate political agenda that is only watched by a handful of people?

That the Australian public does not have an appetite for privatisation does not mean that it doesn't make economic and financial sense and isn't the right thing to do.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Prof Graeme Turner does not have a vested interest in the
ABC - he's no longer in Australia - he's at Stockholm University.
Also you are wrong in thinking that the ABC is supported by
only a few Australians. I gave you several links that tell us
the opposite to be true. The most recent independent Newspoll
shows an extraordinary level of support and enthusiasm for our
national broadcaster. Over 84% of Australians believe that the
national broadcaster provides a valuable service to the community.
84% believe that its reporting is accurate and fair. They think
it does a good job and is of high quality. The evidence is that
the National broadcaster is providing value for the money
invested in it.

If any other organisation had such high proportions of people
valuing it across the country it would be very happy indeed.
And this is evidence that the national broadcaster is providing
value for the money invested in it.

As for your claim that you do not always agree with the
conservative side of politics? The evidence is
to the contrary. Your usual tactic is consistently
finger-pointing
at Labor and stooping to labelling and
name calling such as "Juliar" "Left-whinge" and other such
"endearments." Your record speaks for itself.

Dear Hassie,

To me the ABC is crucial because we are poorly served by
other parts of the media. Too often problems become politicised,
the science is discarded and national debate and decision making
go out the window. I'm sorry that you feel I only read "Leftist"
propaganda. I actually read quite a vast variety of material.
Anyway, I do change my mind on various issues.
However, Thank You for your concern. I hope I haven't disappointed
you too greatly because your opinion does matter to me.

Foxy,

I find it irritating when someone misconstrues what I write and then attacks me for something I neither said nor intended, and you Foxy should really know better. That "GT has personal vested interest in the ABC funding his particular interest." ie documentaries on aboriginal culture and media should be self-evident.

Secondly, I never said "that the ABC is supported by
only a few Australians" rather that certain programming caters to only a small audience which I explained and to which even GT concurs.

Finally, your statement "you are simply assuming that
someone who puts up different opinions to yours they
are automatically classified as a "Leftie." was so general as to be complete bollocks. Here are a few topics with which I have openly disagreed with other conservatives without calling one of them a lefty:

1 I support SSM,
2 I agree that CO2 emissions by mankind are largely responsible for climate change and that steps have to be taken to address this,
3 I strongly believe that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy, etc

However, as a conservative, I find in the left whingers the motherlode of pretentious incompetence.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Talking about absolute bollocks...

You state that you find it irritating when someone
misconstrues what you write and attacks you for
something you neither said or intended. That I
should know better.

I find it irritating when people try to whitewash or deny
what they wrote.
It's rather hard to misconstrue the following
which you wrote and to which I responded:

"What a Shocker. A left whinge professor of cultural
studies thinks that having a left whinge public funded
organisation is a good idea because of its left whinge
cultural programs."

And now you're trying to back-peddle. Your record on this
forum speaks for itself- Who are you trying to kid.

Not buying it.

Besides, I've now lost interest.

Foxy,

I have not backed down from my comment in the slightest, I simply demonstrated that your response that I label "EVERY" person that disagrees with me a leftie is complete bollocks. And as a conservative, that the vast majority of disagreements that I have is with those on the left is neither surprising nor in dispute.

With regards the ABC I have given some basic economic theory on public finance as to why it is economically a bad idea to fund an organisation that competes directly with the private sector, and you give me an academic with a vested interest and a poll that says it's popular, both of which are intellectually lazy arguments.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I've just read your comments on another discussion.

You still continue to attach labels like "Tony Whinger",
"Rob Oafshot", "Juliar," and tell us that the newly
elected Labour Government of New Zealand will be a
farce just as the last Labor team in Australia were.
And you refer to the "decade of sound government"
under John Howard. (You know the PM who was kicked out by
his own electorate).
That clearly shows that you are definitely not
biased. And that we should respect your beliefs.
Apparently.

I shall leave it there.

Foxy,

Again you are confusing opinion and facts I hold little respect for peoples opinions unless they can justify them. If you want to debate economics or other theories based on facts, then I am your man, but if you want to decide public policy based on opinion polls then I am not.

Similarly, if you can project how JA will hold together her new coalition getting the greens to agree with the NZ first team when she simply has to lose 3 MPs from either team for anything not to pass.

I invite you to show how on any measure the AlP outperformed Howard.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes -
You have little respect for people's opinions. Unless
of course - they agree with your political leanings.
The same applies
to any facts presented to you that do not agree with your
political leanings.

You have a right to your political
leanings, of course. But it is disheartening when someone
tries to present broader aspects to a discussion and they
are merely brushed aside as being "Left Whinge", or worse
given inappropriate labels.

I have nothing further to add to this subject. For me it
has now run its course.

Foxy,

You can't claim any better.

I generally try and focus on results and facts rather than opinion, and when I do quote opinion I usually try to avoid quoting someone that is blatantly vested in an opinion.

For example, I will not quote Pauline Hanson, or Abbott on immigration rather I will focus on the results of Labor's policy vs the coalition policy.

In this thread the question of whether the ABC or SBS is a need or a nice to have lies in what the alternative would be. Without either of these institutions, the sky wouldn't fall and I doubt Aus would be worse off in any way.

Shadow Minister,

Your posting record speaks for itself. As does mine.
Forum members can judge us accordingly.

Your views on the ABC and SBS are quite clear as are
the reasons for the views.

Frankly what you think, or say is no longer of any
interest to me.

Foxy,

You have been attacking me, generally without merit, on this thread, even to the point of stalking me on another thread.

I care not for the "judgement" of others on this thread, but obviously, you do.

Shadow Minister,

I have not been attacking you Sir. Merely pointing out
your biases. There is a difference. Also I do not stalk
people. I merely respond to false claims which need
correcting.

It seems that you are the one who's more concerned with
what judgements people make about you. If you don't like
those judgements - you can always improve.

Cheers.

The ABC & SBS are yesterday's (wo)men. The crest of the wave of the digital technology revolution moved past 'The Box' years ago. Best to sell off these outfits now.

Retain a corps of young tech-savvy engineers who can be the mobile facilitation and help desks to ensure that those known sectors of the community with poor digital access and low use, are not being left behind and left out of the world, in limbo. One group for instance would be aged.

Sack all of the expensive stuffed shirt front (wo)men, not required. No-one needs a Tony Jones to tell them what they should believe and limiting/censoring information sources. He and the ABC are easily replaceable. Instead of putting up with Jones nagging about SSM for decades and having to take Panadol for the lingering headache after, take a Tablet and communicate with the world, learn languages, have new hobbies, whatever.

Foxy,

I have on several occasions clearly conceded that I have a conservative bias, but pointing out your falsehood that I label everyone that disagrees with me a leftie is a matter of correcting the record.

I have always spoken my mind and understand the irrelevance of quoting sources that have a clearly vested interest.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Actions do speak louder than words.

You could prove it by changing your tactics on this
Forum.

Looking forward to it.

we could certainly do without paying Emma 400000 plus per year to cry about female pay inequality. What sick irony.