Talk:Fox News

Early Years

Roger Ailes is described as a former Republican Party Strategist. According to Ailes himself in his interview with Peter Robinson of Uncommon Knowledge at the Hoover Institution, he was never a strategist, just a media consultant. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/85840987.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro should include criticism & controversy per LEAD

The introduction for FoxNews needs to mention why they are controversial as a news source. I know there has been extensive discussion on this in the past- archives 21 23 25 etc... But I also see the following summary in the FAQ at the top of this talkpage:

WP:LEAD - The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.

The [old] Concern, mentioned before that, no longer applies to the current lead.
So has it been watered down since then?
          As it stands now the lead merely states "Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." This is a weak summary of substantial criticism. And it is then countered by Fox's rebuttal. In tandem this falsely portrays the FNC as simply another right-wing outlet and thus frames the rest of the article in such a manner. This does not accurately reflect media criticism of FNC contained within the rest of the article -- including Fox News Channel controversies which by extension is a part of this discussion. I think the lead section should include one or two summary sentences of criticism & controversy from the body text and the separate article. For starters the existing sentence in question could be ammended:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality. [1] [2]

Which is what the criticism section says already. We might also mention allegations of poor fact-checking and mixing commentary with reporting. Murdoch's son-in-law even said that he is "ashamed and sickened by [their] horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards" [3]. I present this last source for context, not as one to be used within the article. PrBeacon (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The left and critics may make those general claims, but the average observer does not, sepcifically with regards to their news reporting. Murdoch's son-in-law is hardly notable other than the fact that he happens to be his son-in-law. His opinion would be undue weight. The current lead is the result of several attempts to reach a neutral compromise, your suggestions would push the tone of the article into a neutral point of view violation. Furthermore, the lead can stand on itself as a basic summary. Arzel (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead shouldn't go in-depth. It should mention that some people feel that they promote a conservative POV, then have that issue addressed in the appropriate section. There isn't a need to try to tell the story in the lead, it should indicate that there is a story later in the article. Also, I'm not too keen on the use of "many" in either version. That's vague and POV. Saying "some" is still a vague term, but much less POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if indicating partisanship is the issue, we should also note that the critics are liberals. Can't make FNC's partisanship an issue without mentioning the partisanship of those "many observers". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the noting of the criticism that Fox has a right-leaning bias has been strengthened not watered down as a result of recent past discussions. "Some" was changed to "many"; and "news reporting" (not just "programming" in general) was specifically put into the sentence. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here's the equivalent entry, in toto, for the MSNBC introduction...

Many observers of the network say that MSNBC has become politically liberal compared with other networks, particularly in its prime-time lineup.

Res ipsa loquitor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The disparity in sources between the FNC charge of bias and the MSNBC charge of bias should be noted as well. Sources used for FNC: a liberal opinion piece from Slate, a news story from the left-leaning USA Today about an anti-Fox film, a news story from the liberal Guardian, and a news story from Politico about Anita Dunn's anti-Fox comments. Instead of having conservative and right-leaning sources, the sources used for MSNBC are: two news stories from the left-leaning NYT, a story from the left-leaning WaPo, 2 references to the fairly neutral Pew Center for the People & the Press, and a piece from the liberal Huffington Post.--Drrll (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"..briefly describing its notable controversies. Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias" -- much of the response above has ignored this part of LEAD or otherwise dismissed it. That would not stand up to peer review. Because substantial criticism from reliable sources (left-leaning or not) has a place in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. I don't see a past consensus on the current wording -- please provide links to specific discussions where that was reached -- and it is hardly a compromise to simply call FNC "conservative". Alhough I understand the comparisons to MSNBC I don't think that applies here, mostly because as another edited said "the degree and nature of critism surrounding FNC is fundementality [sic] different than most other channels and hence, perhaps it ought to be treated differently" -NickCT (arch.26). PrBeacon (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the lead "briefly describing its notable controversies"--it seems to already do so. I don't think that the "nature of criticism surrounding FNC is fundamentally different" (you can find the same critiques of CNN & MSNBC being biased in their reporting). You won't find much difference in the "degree" of the criticism either in liberal sources about FNC and conservative sources about CNN/MSNBC. The only major differences in degree can be found in the world of large news organizations, since far more of them are left-leaning than right-leaning.--Drrll (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First, this entire section is predicated on the idea that WP:LEAD (which is a guideline, not a policy) somehow requires that controversy be detail in the lead. LEAD is a suggestion and it says that is is appropriate to overview controveries. As it stands, it gives an overview type indicator that the controversy exists and that it will be covered in the article. That is apppropriate and doesn't need expanded. Now Beacon, you're saying you don't see past consensus (which existed). Just forget that for the moment. What you see is a current consensus. Why do you even need to worry about what happened before? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately what I see isn't up to you. And what you call 'current consensus' is the same belligerent pro-FNC crowd that tried to get MMfA deemed unreliable in a recent WP:RSN. Even after outside editors there ALL said it is reliable. So I'm happy to bring this issue up there as well. The WP:Lead guideline is more important than you seem to think. It's referenced in the Manual of Style and it's currently up for merger with the section there. By the way, Drrll you can work on changing the MSNBC lead if you don't like it. It's not that relevant to this discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You can do all the labelling you want, I still see a number of editors saying you're wrong and only you arguing for it. Whether you like the people or not, it's still the consensus of those discussing it. The issue of MM and the lead are seperate issues, so stop trying to use the results of a seperate discussion as "proof" of how you are right in this. And yes, I am aware that the Lead guideline is in a merge proposal. Guess what? The MoS is also a guideline. So it's being moved from one guideline to another. Wow, big step up. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that PrBeacon is Leonidas at the pass here. Many, many, many editors have cited WP:LEAD as the reason for their views here. Chant "guideline, not policy" all you want, but it's a guideline that has always had a pretty firm consensus here, aside from a small but persistent group of dissenters. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that adding something to the lead about the array of criticisms would be nice, as right now the only thing mentioned is the conservative bias. However, I would suggest that only criticisms covered by other news sources would be used (I would exclude HP, MMFA, and FAIR b/c they have a greater propensity for criticizing Fox News). Soxwon (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, the RSN notice about MMfA was suggested by SaltyBoatr and put up by Blaxthos, both supportive of MMfA as a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If your point is to counter how i characterized 'current consensus' then my point still stands: the editors who've argued in this thread against changing the lead are the same ones who think MMfA is too biased/unreliable as criticism for FoxNews. Regardless of who posted the RSN note. The bigger issue within that point: Do you folks believe any critics of FNC? PrBeacon (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FAQ = past consensus for lead

• Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
• in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
• The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Note: more info above on the alleged conservative bias.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15.
Also please note: my previous posts for this thread neglected to differentiate between the two parts of the FAQ's first point: policy and consensus. PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your addition of "...at the expense of neutrality" is redundant given the preceding text...

Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions.

Please explain your rationale for the additional text. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that Jake's request for rationale came after his (attempted) revert [4] of the addition, though Arzel beat him to the punch. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would remind PrBeacon that the current wording was the result of a great deal of compromise between several parties. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"...at the expense of neutrality" is not redundant, it actually summarizes much of the mainstream criticism -- and Fox's denial in the next sentence makes more sense when there is mention of bias first. The wording I added already appears in the body text, as I said above.
@Arzel - would you please cut the lawyer posturing? Distancing yourself from talkpage chat (with phrasing "I would remind PrBeacon..") doesn't give you any more authority. You repeat what you said before (yet without links to past discussion). Fox's denial of bias (without the allegation) hardly counts as compromise. Seems like you're both ignoring the FAQ. Shall we bring in outside editors again? PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My addition is not redundant with 'conservative' and it appears in the body text

Then it is redundant in the body text as well. "Neutrality" is the antithesis of promoting an ideological "political position" and its addition is redundant and POV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps ideally, philosophically, but its not enough to call them conservative and let the reader infer what you argue. It is appropriate to mention controversy in a lead. Sorry to hear that you don't think so. PrBeacon (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I will assume you are going to append the additional and needed reader "assistance" to the MSNBC article as well? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I won't stop you. (Drrll already tried that debate tactic, above). PrBeacon (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "tactic". I'm trying to grasp your rationale for the additional text you want to incorporate. Would you agree, given your position, that the following is an improvement of the MSNBC introduction...

Many observers of the network say that MSNBC has become politically liberal, at the expense of neutrality, compared with other networks, particularly in its prime-time lineup.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about 'many' because MSNBC doesn't get the same coverage. Perhaps if you provide reasonable RS, even if they are right of center. But honestly I don't see as much criticism of MSNBC about their journalistic standards as there is for Fox. Thats the tradeoff for being such a popular news outlet. Overall media bias? Who knows, thats difficult to argue objectively. And as we've seen in the two previous RS/N threads, even serious critics of either one will be maligned by the other side. PrBeacon (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're evading the question (not that I don't fully understand your need for trying). The issue has nothing to do with the degree or breadth of criticism leveled at Fox or MSNBC, but your assertion that...

...its not enough to call them conservative and let the reader infer what you argue.

If you believe that is true of "calling them conservative", then you must also, logically and consisently, hold the same to be true for "calling them liberal". I believe we're done here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, it has everything to do with criticism. They are not your average conservative, whatever that is. You tried to set up a false choice, then get huffy when I don't fall for it. You may be done, but don't include me in your we. PrBeacon (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to the page. The lead has to discuss the controversy. If anything, the current one sentence on the controversy is too little. There are good facts that would help define the controversy and spark interest in the article. We could mention, for example, the Bush talking points, the Obama criticisms, etc. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, the main controversy about FNC is usually accusations about their bias/neutrality. That is already included. You mention "Bush talking points" and "Obama criticisms". Can you give examples of criticism by reliable sources about those issues? It would seem to me, without seeing a specific example, that "Bush talking points" goes back to the neutrality/bias complaint. I'm not sure what you mean about "Obama criticisms". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

If you're going to credibly discuss this issue you really should know about sections in the main article "Talking points from Bush White House" and "Obama Administration criticism of Fox News" both of which are expanded in the subarticle Fox News Channel controversies. As I said at the top of this thread, the lead does not sufficiently summarize these & other controversies with the simple claim that they "promote conservative political positions" which is then followed by Fox's denial. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I wasn't clear about what I meant, which was specific examples how it should be worked into the leade, limited only to criticisms as stated by reliable sources. For example, he simply said "Obama criticisms". I don't know what he means. Does he intend to make it part of a listing? A sentence seperate from the "talking points" allegations, etc. But I know what is in the fucking article. I've waited to respond to this but waiting and coming back to look at it still doesn't make what you did (drastically altering your reply after I'd replied to it, then inserting a break between them) look proper. But I really don't want to get into that debate. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're backtracking now (and getting pissy about it). It's clear from the progression of this thread (including parts since removed like [5] and [6], when you realized your mistake) that you didn't know he was simply referring to criticism sections already in the body text. You're pretending that you were asking for specifics now that you know he has not returned in the past month. Anyway, he doesn't have to clarify your misunderstanding. He counts as another editor who thinks the lead does not adequately cover the FNC criticism and controversy. Your attempt to lump all the negatives into one "main controversy about FNC" is either disingenuous or blatantly dishonest. And my refactoring is not improper, it's simply in line with reducing/removing similar sidetracks in previous threads. Unfortunately I make the mistake of engaging you in (and thus encouraging) your petty bickering -- whether it's defending my comments against your false claims of 'personal attacks' or countering your weak debate tactics of projection. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I've removed my further comments in this subthread as unnecessary.) -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• You're going to believe whatever you want anyway, regardless of what I say. You've demonstrated over and over that what I actually say or mean has no bearing on what you hear. In any case, he hasn't bothered to come back to clarify exactly how he thinks it should be worked in. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Here we go again with your moaning about "personal comments". Guess what sunshine, when you tell me that I'm "pretending", "disingenuous" and "blantantly dishonest", that's pretty personal. Then when I say that you believe what you want to believe, all of the sudden it's "personal comments". What a joke. Now, as for your latest serial revert....odd you want to rely on the FAQ's and past discussion to keep the word "many", but want to totally disregard it when it doesn't suit your purposes. Thanks for the laughs. At least you have entertainment value. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Moaning sounded more civil than whining, but I can use that if you want. Creepy? Whatever dude? Should I pull up all your prior bitching about "personal attacks"? Nah, not worth the time. Do whatever you want with your comments. And, just in case you forget, I refer to you as "my friend" when I'm avoiding using a much more accurate, but much less civil term. It's not fake anything, it's just restraint. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon asked me to contribute here, but I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been said by me and others in the archives. The usual suspects are making the same arguments over and over again and not bringing anything new in the way of fact or policy based arguments to the table. Speaking of tables, this discussion should be tabled on account of deja vu. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "usual suspects" huh Gam? I know I wasn't in the archived discussion. I'm betting a couple of others weren't either. Regardless, since you contributed nothing new and think it should be tabled, are we to take your post to mean that you think it should be left as it was per the past consensus? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't expect me to tell user names apart when you all keep repeating the same arguments. Maybe if you all added different colors to your signatures or something. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, yes I would expect that when you come in talking about "the usual suspects". So again I ask, are we to take your answer to me that it should be left as is since you don't feel it's worth discussing? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If the usual suspects make the usual arguments on the usual articles, such things happen. And I thought it was perfectly clear that I advocate abiding by the preexisting long-standing consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to be sure. I wouldn't want to presume. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from WP:POVN

Three outside editors at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard # FoxNews have agreed that the lede should better reflect the extensive criticism and controversies of Fox News. Therefore I'm restoring my earlier change as noted above & adding one of the sources from the subarticle FNC controversies. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that same interpretation. Let them come here and discuss, rather than simply pushing your POV. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you're unhappy with the results again from outside editors. User:Leadwind already stated his opinion above. So, to summarize those of us in support of lede change: Blaxthos, Gamaliel, Soxwon, Leadwind, and PrBeacon (me), possibly others like SaltyBoatr, Croctotheface and Soxwon (who've apparently given up trying to balance the entrenched editors here), as well as (at least) two other editors at POV/N Itsmejudith and TFD. Yet you revert my change again disregarding the FAQ and past consensus. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on, exactly what am I agreeing to? (I stopped paying attention to this discussion) Soxwon (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See the original post above. I intended the first change to be a gradual one & only include what the body text already says: "Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality." (change/addition shown in bold) ..But I guess you're partially right, there hasn't been any significant progress on actual wording -- several editors continue to insist that it shouldn't be changed. @Arzel where is the WP policy supporting your edit summary on the revert:[7] "Changes to the lead must be fully discussed and agreed upon" -- and what constitutes fully discussed? -PrBeacon (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As "at the expense of neutrality" appears to (again) be at issue, I just looked at the 4 citations purported to support that text and none (I readily admit I may have missed it) appear to contain that phraseology. Did I overlook it? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of Misrepresentation of Facts - Dispute

This article section contains the following...

Media Matters also called attention to the December 4 edition of Fox and Friends and accused the show of misleading their viewers with a "questionable graphic" that showed the results of a Rasmussen Reports climate change poll adding up to 120%.

Perhaps the following might be illustrative of the problem in utilizing the product of partisan "media watchdog" organizations as something more substantive than partisan sniping. According to the Pew Research Center [8]...

The vast majority of Americans (71%) continue to cite television as their source for most national and international news...More than four-in-ten (42%) say they get most national and international news from the internet,...somewhat fewer (33%) get most of their news from newspapers than from the internet. (accompanying chart)

While this may not be introduced as rebuttal due to WP:OR, as the Pew Research Center appears to be susceptible to Fox News' same mathematical "faux pas", may we also assume that the Pew Research Center is also guilty of misleading their viewers" and of purposefully "misrepresenting fact" as this content suggests? I suppose we could...were it "reliably sourced" by another "media watchdog" group. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine print says "Figures add to more than 100% because of multiple responses." [9] PrBeacon (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're citing a disclaimer for "National and Local" not "National and International". Pew Research Center is obviously "trying to mislead" and "misrepresenting fact" (/sarc) JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The first column clearly says "National/Int'l" with the disclaimer at bottom. PrBeacon (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Title" clearly reads "National and Local" as opposed to the MUCH larger (and considerably more colorful) "National and International" graphic I cited above. Pew Research Center is obviously attempting to "mislead their viewers" and "misrepresent fact" (/sarc) JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're really grasping at straws, At first i gave you the benefit, thinking you missed the fine print. But what's with all the scare quotes & redundant sarcasm? Anyway, as you said- find an RS that criticizes it. PrBeacon (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...find an RS that criticizes it.

Perhaps fortunately, that level of pettiness and demagoguery is a tough find...which is really the point of this exercise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of a partisan website taking a small issue and trying to turn it into a controversy. The assumption is that FNC intentially was trying to mislead, when it is clear it was a simple error. Yet this kind of stuff gets put into many articles hear on WP by agenda driven editors. That such a minor issue would be a prominent issue in this article simply shows the pettiness that abounds. Arzel (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since you opened the door: is it a small issue? Showing incomplete graphics in print is one thing, even if you choose to ignore the fine print and discussion next to it -- which is what an 'agenda driven editor' might do. But intentionally misleading viewers is something that FoxNews has been widely criticized for, this being one example. Wonder what it takes for some to believe that they're not interested in truth, just ratings. PrBeacon (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't we come up with examples of "ratings over truth" for CBS, CNN, NBC, New York Times, the New Republic or any number of other media outlets? I won't pretend that FNC doesn't care a lot about ratings if you don't pretend like they are the only ones who do? Sound fair enough? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When did I say they are the only one? You sure do like to put words in others' mouths. PrBeacon (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize if I wasn't clear. I didn't put words in your mouth. I wasn't implying that you made that claim. I was pointing out that all news outlets place ratings/circulation at least equal with the truth, if not above it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

...is it a small issue?

Perhaps so, perhaps not. However, given the quasi-RS status of the partisan source, it requires additional substantive sourcing to satisfy WP:UNDUE. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this your way of challenging the MM criticism, by comparing the Pew report? No that doesn't quite work. And we don't need to rehash the RS/N discussion. In fact thanks for reminding, I've been meaning to update that thread.. PrBeacon (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this your way of challenging the MM criticism, by comparing the Pew report?

Nope. My original intent was to demonstrate the pettiness of the current content as a rather typical partisan, biased entry. However, after realizing that the entry itself had but a single source ("Media matters") and that the 2nd purported cite did not cite the content at all, I will tag it pending provision of additional substantive citations under WP:UNDUE. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's contrary to what was already discussed at two RS/N threads. MM is reliable. PrBeacon (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is...for partisan and/or biased content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SquallBL, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change reference 1's citation, as there is something wrong with it. SquallBL (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

SquallBL (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction is already in progress (and was IN progress when you placed this tag). Is this monstrous tag really necessary?JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Already done per above. Celestra (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)