-
Opinion
How to debunk media myths
In this post, UWS’s Ullrich Ecker, John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky argue that cognitive science can help PRs form strategies in managing media misreporting.
A growing cohort of commentators has bemoaned the descent of contemporary political “debate” into a largely fact-free zone.
How about simply focusing on what consumers want?
In this guest post, Peter Mountford argues that brands should think more about what is really going on for consumers
Who here is hoping their favourite brand of toilet paper is going to be organizing a flash mob on their way home from work today?
What the Optus web copyright victory means
In this analysis first published on The Conversation, RMIT’s Marita Shelly examines the implications of Telstra’s defeat over the online rights to the AFL broadcast deal
This week’s Federal Court ruling that Optus customers are able to view sporting matches minutes after they are streamed live without breaching copyright is a landmark decision that alters our understanding of copyright law, and has significant implications for the AFL’s broadcasting rights deal.
Does Gina Rinehart’s bite of a chunk of Fairfax make her an oligarch?
In an article that first appeared in The Conversation, Mark Rolfe wonders whether the mining magnate’s move could turn Fairfax into something resembling America’s Fox network.Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart has moved to increase her stake in Fairfax Media, owner of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and a number of radio stations. Rinehart has already shown her desire to play a role in public life, campaigning against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s aborted mining tax. She has also demonstrated a willingness to make media investments to ensure her pro-business worldview is promulgated.
What does this latest move by Rinehart mean?
Gillard's Australia Day crisis
PM Julia Gillard’s media adviser Tony Hodges has been forced to resign over the Australia Day tent embassy debacle.
It came after it emerged he had revealed opposition leader Tony Abbott’s whereabouts, leading to both politicians being rescued by police in ugly scenes.
Mumbrella editor Tim Burrowes and advertising practitioner Jane Caro debate the topic on Weekend Sunrise’s masters of Spin segment:
The biggest cock-up I made in business
In this guest post, Chris Savage urges agency staff to live the brand.I still shudder when I think about how incredibly stupid I was when I made the biggest stuff up of my career. And then, 18 years later, I did it again. Do not make this mistake with your clients. Ever.
Hey Groupon. Thanks for fucking up email
In this guest post, Daniel Monheit warns that group deal overload is devaluing email marketingEmail marketing used to be fabulous. Back in the heady days of 2010, brands would work hard to build up well qualified databases, upon which they’d bestow carefully crafted correspondence filled with information, offers and incentives. The recipients, of course would be delighted: “Oh look! An email! From one of my favourite brands! And it’s 40 cents off at Woolies this week!”.
The staggering sway of Harold Mitchell
The Power Index today names Aegis Media chairman Harold Mitchell as the most powerful person in Melbourne. Andrew Crook profiles him.
Harold Mitchell takes pride in dispensing with the niceties. When The Power Index visited his South Melbourne private office before Christmas, fresh remains were scattered all over the boardroom table.
Share a Coke with… the moronic masses
The most-read story on Mumbrella last year, with not far off 100,000 page views, was a fairly humdrum yarn about the launch of Coca-Cola’s name-on-a-bottle campaign.The headline, “Coca-Cola puts people’s names on bottles in ‘Share a Coke’ campaign”, though hated by any self-respecting sub-editor, was loved by Google. And in rushed what can be politely described as the public.
Assumptions kill creativity
In this guest post, Gual Barwell disagrees that the sales success of the Old Spice social media campaign was overstated.Yesterday’s post from Cathie McGinn suggested the Old Spice campaign failed to connect with consumers. Based on the facts and figures, I disagree.
What Old Spice and Wieden + Kennedy has done and done phenomenally well is to create a franchise.
The SMH's readers (are wrong) editor
We are now about five months into the reign of Australia’s first readers’ editor. And I don’t think it is working.
It struck me at the time of Judy Prisk’s appointment to the Sydney Morning Herald that the fact that her boss was editor-in-chief Peter Fray was not going to be ideal if she was going to be the independent voice of the reader.
The emperor's new fragrance: Old Spice’s campaign failure
In this guest post, Cathie McGinn slays a sacred cow of 21st century marketing – the highly awarded Old Spice campaign.One of the biggest myths of recent times (by which I mean a story of great heroism and triumph we’d all like to believe but deep down know to be untrue) is the Old Spice social media campaign. It’s been much lauded and awarded as an example of outstanding content, a creative and collaborative way of connecting with consumers and driving a record increase in sales.
How reliable are radio ratings?
In this guest posting, Jason ‘Jabba’ Davis wonders how accurate radio ratings can be, since the data is collated from handwritten diaries.
So, the radio ratings season gets underway tomorrow. After a well-earned break, Australia’s commercial radio stations will renew their obsession with figures to see how many of us are listening. Are they winning or losing the ratings war?
The much feared radio survey is the only way to measure the success or failure of a station’s playlist, talent, promotions or even good old Black Thunder crosses. With six-figure salaries riding on the make-or-break nature of ratings, just how accurate are Australia’s radio survey results?
One-eyed Willy’s rich stuff: brands as movie heroes
I have just spent an entire day on a plane. I can’t sleep on flights, even after heavy sedation. So I watched seven films, back to back. Most of the new ones were truly awful and I couldn’t finish them. So I watched an old favourite, The Goonies. I have probably watched this film more than 200 times since I was a kid. But this time, with work in the back of my mind, one thing stuck out – how much brands were the stars of the film.The gospel of participation is making brands forget about mass reach
In this guest post, Simon Lawson argues that brands are becoming obsessed with getting consumers to participate, rather than remembering to deliver mass exposure.I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a lot of brands are wasting significant amounts of time and money on ineffective marketing. Large sums are being put behind tactics which end up being too small to have much chance of influencing total brand preference.
Plane disaster censored from Nine News because of Qantas link
The Nine Network this morning censored its 5am news bulletin to avoid mentioning last night’s Air France disaster because the programme is funded by Qantas, Mumbrella can reveal.
Nine's early morning Qantas bulletin (this image not from today)
The network’s first bulletin of the day had no mention of the disappearance of the flight off the coast of Brazil, despite it being a major story in other Australian media.
Because a recording of the programme is also shown on Qantas flights throughout that day, Nine took the decision not to tell TV viewers about the disaster.
A spokesman for Nine sent a brief email to Mumbrella saying: “We never report news involving plane incidents on Qantas inflight news bulletins.”
The story came to light after The Punch’s deputy editor Tory Maguire pointed out the absence of the crash story in a Twitter message.
Requests for more detailed comment from Nine were not returned.
Update: it’s not the first time. My attention has been drawn to this transcript from the ABC’s Media Watch pointing out a similar issue over striking Qantas engineers and other mishaps last year.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
-
Follow Us
-
Email Newsletter
Latest Jobs- Account Director - Sydney
- Exhibition Manager - Sydney
- Online Media Sales Executive - Sydney
- Software Architect (M2504) - Melbourne VIC
- Digital Producer - Sydney
- Innovation Project Leader - bringing ideas to life! - Sydney
- Ruby on Rails Web Developer - Sydney
- Ruby on Rails Web Developer - Sydney
- Solutions Architect - Sydney
- Digital Account Director - Sydney
Comments
2 Jun 09
3:48 pm
I’m not sure that I see the big deal here. Airlines have long had this practice and the Qantas deal with Channel 9 is not new.
I’m sure it wasn’t even a decision in the newsroom, just a procedure. Similar to the general rule of not reporting suicides.
At least Tory McGuire kept it to a twitter post.
2 Jun 09
3:48 pm
Selective news, eh? Now, that’s integrity…
2 Jun 09
3:54 pm
I’d appreciate that if I was on a Qantas flight today.
2 Jun 09
3:57 pm
the issue is that the news was censored for those not on the flight…
I can watch a plane crash doco then get on a plane, doesn’t bother me… bad fliers yes it would…
so cut two different news’ if you have to… but don’t be lazy and have only one news that has misses the big story just to appease qantas.
2 Jun 09
3:59 pm
Hi willermrt,
Thanks for your comment. I see no issue at all with Nine preparing bulletins for Qantas to play on its planes however the client wants it.
The issue comes when they broadcast it on the network and call it news.
If I tune in to the early news on my TV, I expect to see what’s happened while I was asleep, not a flight-friendly version.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella.
2 Jun 09
4:04 pm
So would that be the first missed scoop from The Punch then?
2 Jun 09
4:14 pm
Remember the big deal when Qantas edited Rain Man to delete the ‘QANTAS never crashes’ line.
This news is so old Tom Cruise was still popular last time it came up.
2 Jun 09
4:21 pm
Hi ian,
I’d make the same point again. If Qantas want to edit Rain Main when they show it on their planes, then that’s up to them. If Nine aired the same version I’d have a problem with it.
Cheers,
Tim
2 Jun 09
4:26 pm
It wouldn’t be commercially viable for Nine to staff a roster for a full production 5am news bulletin if it wasn’t for the support of Qantas. So the alternative would be no bulletin at all.
It’s worth missing out on a single story once in a while in order to be able to enjoy an early news programme all the year round? Nine is not a charity.
2 Jun 09
4:31 pm
God help us if that naughty QANTAS runs an edited movie AT THE SAME time the unedited movie is still playing at cinemas.
Stop the Presses.
2 Jun 09
4:35 pm
its the Channel 9 5am bulletin at 5am. I’m sure that its not exactly put there for general news consumption or advertising dollars.
I’m sure the main reason its there at all is the Qantas news contract.
It was still news, and I think you are holding up television stations to standards which simply do not present a business case, especially in the face of declining revenues.
personally I would prefer a 5am news bulletin sans plane crash stories than none at all.
2 Jun 09
4:47 pm
wonder willemrt what else nine doesn’t need to cover because they are doing the news only for businesses not actually covering the news….
and how much would it really cost to do another run through of the bulletin anyway.. what add another even say 20min to redo it for qantas… they could even charge them more for doing it
2 Jun 09
4:53 pm
Needless to say it was top billing on both of their other news bulletins thus far today.
They launched the Early News as a cheap way of competing with Seven, who were doing the same thing – the only trouble was the Qantas branding.
2 Jun 09
4:58 pm
Wolfcat, are you being serious? I think not.
Most news is done for its ‘news value’ that’s why third world conflicts killing 1000′s of people get pushed down because we need to talk about petrol prices.
It’s akin to stepping back aghast when today tonight does another ‘dodgy builder’ story, ignoring the actual current affairs of the day.
2 Jun 09
5:28 pm
They can report what they want….? Do you blame them? lol
2 Jun 09
5:50 pm
Fuck me. Is this what we’ve come to? Feeling grateful to get any sort of news bulletin at all, even if it’s one that gets sanitised for the sponsors.
How far until this isn’t okay by you guys? 6am? 6.30? 7am? The 7pm bulletin sponsored by Telstra (no mention of the NBN plans then)? What wouldn’t be alright for you?
Most countries’ broadcast regulators don’t allow news bulletins to be sponsored for exactly this reason.
Let me spell it out for the idiots who don’t get it.
If you tell the readers you’re giving them the news, then GIVE THEM THE NEWS. If it’s sanitised for Qantas, don’t broadcast it.
How would they have covered 9-11 without mentioning planes?
2 Jun 09
6:17 pm
Ability to produce multiple versions of one broadcast FAIL
2 Jun 09
6:27 pm
I think Qantas passangers have just as much right to know about a plane crash as the rest of the world. If I was on a Qantas plane, I’d like to think that I am getting the real news, not the sanitised version.
Qantas didn’t seem to have a problem with showing “Snakes on a Plane” on my flight to LA when that movie was screening.
2 Jun 09
7:05 pm
I remember I was in Toronto when an AirFrance plane crashed on the runway in 2005… plane exploded and everyone survived… The only way we at the terminal knew what was going on was through the local news on the tele. It’s a bit of an odd feeling when you realise the plane disaster on the news is happening out the window…
2 Jun 09
9:08 pm
Certainly an interesting one that’s for sure.
Just a note on the first comment. There is no general rule not to report suicides. There has been a lot of effort in working with newsrooms and media outlets for years to educate them on the ‘sensitive’ way to report suicides (with no impact on the ‘news’ aspect of each story), however, most mental health experts will tell you they’re probably not reported enough. The only ‘rule’ is to offer a help-seeking phone number or website with each report.
But I digress…
I can see both sides of the argument about this apparent censorship. But I am a nervous flyer, who flies fortnightly.. if I saw that story on Qantas I would have an issue with it. Particularly given that every time I tend to fly with our National carrier now, there are no ‘sick bags’ to be seen to prevent hyperventilation with.
For this and a few other reasons, I don’t watch the inflight news because it feels like I’m in my own episode of Groundhog Day. It’s not news, it’s infotainment.
2 Jun 09
10:11 pm
Does that mean that if the news was sponsored by a car company, no car crashes, stolen vehicles or accidents involving vehicles would be reported on?
2 Jun 09
10:30 pm
Seriously, who here gets their news on TV anymore anyway?
: P
3 Jun 09
8:21 am
Thank god for the ABC – that’s why they’re there right?
3 Jun 09
11:05 am
In an ideal world news programmes – like schools and unis – would be exempt from commercial pressure. But they’re not.
Does it matter so much any more? Bloggers, Twitter, mobile phone cameras, UGC have democratised the news. So omissions like this get picked up on and we all trust the Channel 9 news source a little less.
3 Jun 09
11:15 am
If you lay down with dogs you’ll get flees.
It isn’t called commercial television for nothing.
3 Jun 09
11:24 am
The Qantas lounge in Perth did not have the latest edition of the West Australian newspaper on display because it showed the Air France crash on the front page
3 Jun 09
12:41 pm
Good post Tim. The fact that Nine airs a new bulletin which is constrained by a commercial arrangement is indeed news worthy.
3 Jun 09
12:41 pm
Slow news day is it – this is hardly news for anyone
3 Jun 09
12:48 pm
So why do they show house fire stories on the news when I’m sitting in a house watching the news?
3 Jun 09
12:52 pm
Anyone who thinks they are getting independent journalism on any of the commercial networks should have their heads checked – if you want some integrity in news reporting stick with the ABC or SBS. I think its a disgrace that Channel 9 even allows anyone to sponsor the news and dictate what is ‘news’. Its tantamount to Channel 9 sticking their heads in the sand and saying: “Plane crash, what plane crash?” How pathetic! I assume this means they can’t report anything critical of the airline either.
3 Jun 09
12:53 pm
It’s been a long term practice of TV stations to be careful of what goes on air, immediately after a disaster.
Back in the days when movies were often on tv, if a plane disaster movie was scheduled to air, the network would have a spare film ready to go in case of a real-life disaster. In other words, it’s seen as tasteless.
I think it’s a good thing that Nine didn’t show the AirFrance story. And I don’t see what the big deal is…
Now if the biggest story of the day was “Qantas responsible for (insert terrible thing here)” and Nine didn’t air it, then I’d be worried.
But a plane crash could frighten some passengers, so why bother?
3 Jun 09
12:56 pm
This policy hasn’t always been the case …. I have fond memories circa 2002 of being on a Qantas flight taxing out to the runway at Heathrow and the Ch9 Bulletin running a lead storey on the threat of rockets being fired at planes from the streets of London…….. must say it caused quite a stir amongst the Contiki tour types on board
3 Jun 09
12:57 pm
Typical Nine arrogance.
Typical near sightedness.
Like Brian henderson used to say “…and that’s the way it is”
or maybe more like it isn’t…..
trust and media???
3 Jun 09
1:01 pm
So this week we have carefully edited sponsored ‘news’ bulletins, and last week we have people making stuff up. mmhh no wonder there’s a credibility concern in ‘news’, and whats real or not. And as you knew damn well, this is the more significant debate, you clever man you Tim. Dovetails nicely with your dapper appearance on telly yesterday. or did you make that up?!
3 Jun 09
1:03 pm
I dont want to see air crash news when I am in-flight any more than I would chose to watch ‘Final Destination’. But the broadcast bulletin should have included it. As it didnt, this bulletin must be regarded as made for Qantas commercial purposes only.
What they may have been trying to censor: Qantas have more than 20 Airbus A330s and the new A380 uses similar electrical systems.
3 Jun 09
1:11 pm
Come on people … what’s all the fuss about?
Want real news – watch ABC or SBS.
3 Jun 09
1:18 pm
I think its fine to treat issues with sensitivity, but if the issue is that Nine didnt run the story because of commercial implications that is a different story all together.
Essentially, this amounts to sponsored content and the level of input that a commercial relationship can impact on what should be objective coverage of stories that are of relevance and perceived importance to a viewer.
Agree that for some QANTAS passengers the reporting of an air crash may have been disturbing whilst in flight but for others they may feel it appropriate to be kept informed. The issue is the person who made this decision wasnt on a plane they were in an edit suite being told cut-it we dont want to upset the client.
3 Jun 09
1:23 pm
Sounds like everyone heard the news regardless of ch 9 showing it or not!
3 Jun 09
1:24 pm
I think there’s a difference between the crash of the Air France plane and the rockets at Heathrow airport. One is about something that happened to a plane and no one yet knows why, and the other is about terrorism. Of course you would expect Q-inflight news to broadcast reports of 9/11… It’s the sort of story that will impact the world, similarly with the anti-terror measures at Heathrow at the time.
But this story on a flight would scare passengers, so why do it?
3 Jun 09
1:45 pm
Having worked as a producer of the Qantas inflight news at TCN 9 when the daily service first began in the early 90s – the instructions were to cut out all references to plane crashes because they could cause distress for passengers who were already nervous about flying. That seemed sensible, although perhaps the censorship has since been extended to include anything that reflects badly on Qantas. As young journalists who were rather excited about dramatic news like plane crashes we would sometimes forget the rule… a few times this meant going back to the start and taping the news all over again.
3 Jun 09
2:02 pm
To all those who oppose the ‘censorship’ of the in-flight, consider how your client’s brand would like it if its banner-ad appeared on a hard-core porn site. The client would demand its removal. Or what if an FPC ad for a high-speed sports car was opposite a story of a massive fatal car crash – there would be a song and dance as to how insensitive it was. Nine and Qantas are showing sensitivity to their audience – sounds logical to me. There would be a PR uproar if just a single flier took offense.
3 Jun 09
2:05 pm
It’s a real blow to quality journalism when commercial objectives censor news value and a person’s right to know.
Nine needs to take stock of the decision to avoid reporting on a major news story purely to appease a commercial brand.
It also denotes the wider issue that commercial realities are constantly setting the news agenda for commercial TV news. It is hard to watch the news without viewing something appearing on ACA of 60 Minutes later in the evening. (Note to producers: Jana Rawlingson’s supposed boob job wasn’t a top news story when I studied journalism. )
Commercial free-to-air network news is showing a good case for never letting the truth come in the way of a good story – which is why I can’t bear to watch it anymore.
3 Jun 09
2:08 pm
There’s a strange assumption here that Qantas / Nine have a monopoly on news services, and that in cutting out the reference to the crash, the population of Australia are somehow being robbed of their right to an impartial, frank and honest fourth estate. Any thought that it might distress those nervous travellers be discounted…
PLEASE.
OK, it’s not ideal, it ultimately should be up to the viewer to decide if they want to watch the news coverage of the crash, but if you’re so upset about censored news, go and find news by scouring any one of about 10,000 other readily available information sources available.
If I’m catching a flight, by the time I’ve woken up at 5:30am (radio on), jumped online while I’m having my morning coffee (400+ news and RSS feeds), jumped into a taxi (radio), checked into the airport / lounge (TV / newspapers), and got onto the plane – I’m covered. Plane time = sleep time!
However, if I am one of those nervous travellers who is sitting there in the plane, bolt upright, sweating and fidgeting about whether I’m going to reach my destination alive, then I’d prefer not to be reminded that the somewhat irrational cause of my fears has bean realised on the other side of the world.
3 Jun 09
2:31 pm
Get your hand off it Con.
It’s clearly poor journalism to skip a story of interest to your audience because of the influence of an advertiser.
And editing news because irrational people might find it disturbing is no defence either. Wishful thinking and rose coloured glasses is no way to approach news.
3 Jun 09
2:34 pm
Qantas is just a big baby, with some control issues. It’s impossible to control the corporate message nowadays, and doing it just makes the brand look stupid and petulant. I think Qantas looks just that: stupid and petulant. I think the blame should be fairly and squarely on the brand. However I also think that consuming television news programs as “news” is a naive and old fashioned habit. This situation shows that audiences need to seek news that is democratic, independent (not necessarily commercial or not commercial, as I don’t think this is the issue) and not influenced by brands who are still stuck in communications strategies from last century.
3 Jun 09
2:36 pm
If you did a poll of everyone sitting on a plane and asked them about their level of nervousness from a scale of one to ten, you’d find a decent proportion hitting 3 or more, and some people sitting at 5 or above – i.e., nervous. I think it’s absolutely legitimate to not agitate them further.
Why should people expect to get news when they fly anyway? I’m sure in 5 years we’ll all have constant info access at all times, so when that’s the case I’ll sit in J4 watching Nick Cave videos, and you can watch the flight in front of us plough into the sea in real time. Stuff provided by airlines doesn’t have to comply to any standards – so stop grizzling about it.
3 Jun 09
2:50 pm
Hi Lolo,
Thanks for your comment, and apologies for the grizzling.
I think you may have misread the piece. We’re talking about the news that was broadcast by Nine to their TV audience.
As I said before, I’ve no issue at all with Qantas using an edited ‘flight friendly’ version on their planes. But if a broadcaster airs a programme called the news, it should contain news, not an advertiser-friendly version.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
3 Jun 09
3:12 pm
Great piece Tim. Delightfully ironic for Nine given their recent low-level pot-shots at Seven with those annoying “Get the news first” ads bashing Channel Seven over certain stories that Nine aired the day before.
Perhaps herein lies the counter-punch for Seven execs if they decide to stoop to their rival’s level.
3 Jun 09
3:18 pm
My apologies Mumbrella, I had jumped into the debate after only a hasty read. I agree wholeheartedly that a news service on the telly or other media should show all news, even though I stand by my argument that a news service in the pointy metal thingie can legitimately be edited.
3 Jun 09
7:10 pm
As an airline employee for over 20 years I’ve seen / heard of plenty of panic stricken passengers getting very edgy before departure and in flight.
The last thing these folks need is an air crash story at 30,000 ft and crapping themselves and doing something foolish endangering themselves and others.It is not uncommon.
Forget conspiracy theories.
For the sake of safety in air this kind of editing IS a good idea.
4 Jun 09
11:26 am
as a further comment..
All news presented by any network is edited in some way .There are too many stories to publish at any one time to cover,some too big so they are glossed over in no detail.
So in that sense they only read/print /publish etc what they feel in newsworthy.
I’ve known passengers to panic and run for the door AFTER departure.Had aircraft come back to the gate with scared passengers .
There is a real terror for some flyers.They dont need any help being scared witless and stand by my comments earlier.
4 Jun 09
11:32 am
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments – it’s useful having the airline staff perspective.
Just to stress, I understand why an airline might choose not to show such news to its flyers.
The issue is that this bulletin was broadcast on television too – the problem being that TV viewers did not see the major story of the day becasue this show was going to be shown on Qantas too.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
4 Jun 09
11:46 am
thanks Tim.
My comments were toward those that are anti qantas no matter what and also those that have a conspiracy mindset for seemingly everthing.
As an aviation veteran of over 30 years I do get a bit tetchy about the amount of utter bollocks that is published at times.
The forum is appreciated.
Peter.
5 Jun 09
3:13 am
it’s the news they send to Qantas to be played on their flights, and is just replayed at 5am so mums with restless bubs and early starting (or late finishing!) workers have something stimulating to watch, instead of shitty infomercials selling useless appliances…
It doesn’t have plane incident related stories because of that very reason, it is made FOR plane passengers… it’d freak people out if they saw other planes falling out of the sky whilst they are in that very same sky. get it?
heres a tip, don’t like it? flick over to test pattern or buy the ‘magic bullet food whizz’ for another network… no ones forcing you to watch…
5 Jun 09
7:06 am
Smoking gun,
Perhaps unlike you I don’t jave Foxtel so don’t get Sky News. I also get up early, and Nine’s is pretty much the only choice (if I want TV news instead of Radio National).
This may sound naive, but the way I see it is that the airwaves belong to the Australian people. The TV networks get to use them, and make a lot of money from it. In return they should give us the news, unedited, unbiased and unsanitised for their advertisers.
But actually I don’t blame the TV stations – they’ll make a buck where they can. It’s the regulators’ fault. News should be the one thing that can’t be sponsored.
2 Jul 09
8:35 am
is this another example of Mumbrella living off News Ltd (a twitter from Punch). Maybe Hartigan is right?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks