OntheMedia Podcast Audio

The new chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr, is putting pressure on news outlets, including CBS's 60 Minutes, through investigations and threats of fines. Carr has reopened complaints against ABC, NBC, and CBS, alleging bias and news distortion. The FCC is also investigating public TV and radio stations, including WNYC. Carr's actions are seen as part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to cut federal funding for public media. The investigations and pressure from the FCC are causing anxiety among media organizations and raising concerns about censorship. So we have to work together to smash the censorship cartel. The new chairman of the FCC is putting the squeeze on news outlets. From WNYC in New York, this is On The Media, I'm Brooke Blackstone. And I'm Michael Loewenger. Also on this week's show, there's a reason that some on the right want to reshape our collective memory of Watergate. The idea that a clear majority of the country could be so repulsed by a president's authoritarianism, let's make sure that never comes back again. Plus, for Bryan Stevenson, the Trump administration's targeting of the Smithsonian for, quote, improper ideology makes the case for confronting America's darkest legacy. I'm not interested in talking about these things because I want to punish America. I want to liberate us. There's thriving democracy waiting for us, but we can't get there if we don't have the courage to be honest about the things that have held us back. It's all coming up after this. On The Media is supported by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. From WNYC in New York, this is On The Media. I'm Michael Ellinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. On Tuesday, amid remembrances of Pope Francis and Earth Day celebrations, the dramatic resignation of a guy named Bill Owens still managed to make the news, for good reason. This is huge news, and I mean, this literally shook the media news world today. The executive producer of CBS News in 60 Minutes calling it quits today. I've been with the news program for 24 years, 37 years at CBS. Now normally that would probably not be news that we would bring you, except the circumstances rise to the level of, well, alarm. Owens said in a letter to his staff that, quote, over the past month it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience. And the context here is key. 60 Minutes is facing a $20 billion lawsuit from President Trump and an FCC investigation into, quote, intentional news distortion. And the context? The network's owner wants to expand, which the FCC could obstruct. It's just one in a series of intimidations, investigations, launched or revived under the FCC's new chairman, Brendan Carr. Just a quick note here. WNYC, our producing station, is also under investigation by the FCC, along with a bunch of other public TV and radio stations. Next week marks Carr's first 100 days as chairman. He's been busy. Brendan Carr has sent letters to both Comcast and Disney saying that he would be looking into whether or not their diversity hiring initiatives violated rules around fair hiring. Max Tanney is Semaphore's media editor. He filled me in on what Brendan Carr has been up to. The DEI hiring practices were part of what Brendan Carr laid out in Project 2025. But has he actually done anything on this stuff? He's just said that he's going to, and that's another thing that is really important to keep in mind here. Brendan Carr has sent a lot of signals via Twitter, sent a lot of very threatening legal letters. He hasn't actually done much other than reopen investigations. As I mentioned, he's also looking into PBS and NPR, including some NPR member stations, ours among them. It's the nature of noncommercial public sponsorship messages that Carr is using as his lever. He's concerned that some of them might be commercial, but actually they're underwriting, and there are distinctions about what is and isn't allowed in public radio's sponsorship mentions. From talking to people at NPR, I feel that I can say this confidently. There is the view that this is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to cut federal funding for public media. I don't think that's much of a stretch, Max. But obviously the FCC has to operate within certain regulatory framework, and the focus of this complaint is not the ideological position that Carr and other Republicans have, which is that the federal government shouldn't be paying to fund public radio. The complaint is about, oh, well, you actually violated some of the rules around sponsorships, and these sponsorships are actually ads, and NPR believes that it's done nothing wrong here. On to the attacks on the network. During the election, CBS had an interview with Kamala Harris that Trump claimed was unfairly edited to, I don't know, make her sound smart. Subsequently, the conservative legal group called the Center for American Rights, that's Carr, filed an FCC complaint calling for an investigation into CBS. It didn't go anywhere, but Brendan Carr revived this complaint, along with complaints of bias against ABC and NBC, which were also earlier dismissed. So what do we know about the complaints against ABC and NBC? The complaint that's been reopened into ABC is the result of what some on the right see as unfair moderation in favor of Kamala Harris during one presidential debate between Harris and Trump. The complaint against NBC is essentially a fair time complaint. I love this one. Yes, Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live right in the weeks before the election. Nice to see you, Kamala. It is nice to see you, Kamala. And I'm just here to remind you, you got this. That made Donald Trump very upset, and so he complained about it and said he wasn't being given equal time. The former FCC commissioner under Biden, Jessica Rosenworcel, dismissed the complaint at the end of her term saying that NBC had made available equivalent time for Trump during other events. So this week we learned that Bill Owens is stepping down as executive producer of CBS's 60 Minutes. That has to do with what seems like a capitulation because Sherry Redstone, who is the ultimate boss, wants to do a merger. Yeah, basically what we have found from talking to people within CBS and Paramount is that in recent weeks, as Paramount, the parent company of CBS, is trying to do a merger with Skydance, an entertainment company, that deal has not closed pending some FCC regulation. President Donald Trump has taken a strong interest in the editorial direction of 60 Minutes. Just earlier this month, he complained about segments that the broadcaster ran on Ukraine and Greenland. On Truth Social, he writes, quote, CBS is out of control at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this. They should lose their license, he said. Hopefully the federal chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment for their unlawful and illegal behavior. And the result of that was quite a lot of anxiety within Paramount, which is desperate for this deal to close. And what we reported is that Sherry Redstone and Paramount were very interested to know the remaining segments that 60 Minutes was going to be running on Trump for the rest of the season, which ends in the middle of May. We journalists don't like having the suits telling us what we can and what we can't report. And Sherry Redstone's actually been increasingly public in her criticism of 60 Minutes. In early January, she appointed Susan Zirinsky, the former head of CBS News, to act as a standards editor. Zirinsky has been looking over many of the more controversial and sensitive segments that have aired on CBS. Now, in terms of the editing of the Kamala Harris interview, they decided they'd go ahead and turn over the full transcript and nobody found anything wrong with it? That's right. CBS and Paramount made an unusual decision to turn over the unedited transcript to the FCC. And they did take an additional step to release this publicly. We see from the transcript they just took a different part of the same answer to clarify a statement from Harris which was a little bit unclear. You would teach this in journalism school, essentially. Run the most clear answer that gets closest to what the subject is trying to say. You know, I can't tell you how many times in editing I have dropped the first sentence of a guest's answer. That's generally the thumb-sucking, time-spilling moment where they're thinking. I'm sure you'll do that for this interview, and I think the audience will thank you for it. But Carr is still going with it, or is it just to put pressure on Sherry Redstone? He's left it open. It does beg the question of what exactly you're investigating if the transcript is out there. Everyone can judge for themselves whether the news has been distorted. With regard to the complaint against CBS, Carr did invoke the news distortion policy, which is very rarely used. You have to provide evidence that the broadcast entity actually intended malice. One of the things that I've done over the past few days is look at when has this been used before. There have only been a handful of complaints in recent years around news distortion, and generally they have not resulted in investigations, and even the ones that have resulted in investigations haven't often resulted in fines. And so it is very, very unusual for the FCC commissioner to be getting involved in the editorial decisions of broadcasters. One of the things that I think is really interesting here is the balance that Brendan Carr is trying to strike. He's talked a lot about the desire for deregulation in the broadcast space, the desire for the government to get out of making some of those decisions. Wow. Yes, yes. You recognize the irony, but at the same time, he also has been one of the most active commissioners of the FCC in recent memory. One of my top priorities is trying to smash this censorship cartel. There's a lot of censorship that these companies are doing on their own. You also have, secondarily, pressure, particularly the last couple of years, from the Biden administration to censor. But also you've got this cohort of advertising and marketing agencies that are sort of the tip of the spear to enforce... So if the impact of all of this is fundamentally to strike fear, Bill Owen's departure from CBS seems like a sign that it's already having a chilling effect. Where else is the temperature dropping because of Carr? He's also opened up an inquiry into Odyssey, the radio broadcaster. He pointed to a broadcast on one of their California AM stations earlier this year, a Hispanic radio station that was essentially letting listeners know that there were local ICE raids that were happening in the area. And he said that that violated regulations and that he would be looking into it. But we should note as well that Carr had singled out Soros-funded media before even becoming FCC chair. Odyssey is owned by Soros Fund management and is a large public broadcaster. So that's one place that we haven't mentioned yet that is certainly seeing additional federal scrutiny. For the last year and a half, Truth Social has relentlessly pursued a defamation case against 19 media companies that flubbed the story about the platform's earnings, said that it had lost more money than it had actually lost. Among his targets was the media company Nexstar, which owns a lot of stations and also the Washington political newsletter, The Hill. It settled, even though a lot of people said they had a really good case. Nexstar, which is a large owner of local broadcasters, had been lobbying the Trump administration and the FCC to lift the ownership cap on local stations. Right now there is a regulation in place that limits the amount of stations that can be owned by one company. We reported earlier this month that Nexstar actually in late 2023 reached a settlement with Truth Social to fire one of its reporters in exchange for Truth Social dropping a defamation lawsuit. This reporter's job was essentially to rewrite news from other organizations. They were assigned this story from The Hollywood Reporter and kind of just wrote it up. In most circumstances this would be seen as slightly sloppy. It was obviously a pretty strong signal that Nexstar was willing to make some compromises. It should be noted that they were the only media company that was dropped from this suit. Since Trump has returned to office, The Hill has said that it's going to make some changes. They said that they were going to get rid of their DEI reporter, one of their immigration reporters, one of the reporters on climate change and the environment. It does seem like part of a very, very deliberate strategy to send signals to the Trump administration that they don't want to be perceived as too far to the left. The fact that The Hill is dropping all those beats says an awful lot. And I wonder what you think the public needs to know about the nature and severity of these pressures on journalists. I mean, so much is in chaos. How high should this issue rank on our anxiety list? Below threats to Medicaid, but above, say, renaming the Gulf of Mexico? I mean, this is the question about stakes. You see, over the last four years, Trump and allies of Trump have really fought hard about the levers that they could pull, the pressure that they could put on media organizations. You're seeing that play out across broadcast news in particular. The people that lose in this case are the news consumers who do suffer if an organization decides that they're so scared of federal government regulation that they're just going to hold back, not go as far as they might go, or decide to scrap something altogether. A.J. Liebling often observed that news is fundamentally a business. And, you know, there are good parts to that. That way the government can't control it. But if the business gets too big, then it runs into the government all over again. And its future comes down to rich people talking to other rich people. And the regular people who they serve really don't get a vote. Yeah, and you really do see that in these big, multifaceted corporations that make a lot more money from other parts of the business, whether that is, you know, something like theme parks or Internet. Or they just want to grow, grow, grow. Exactly. You definitely see over the last several months that news concerns and pursuing the most aggressive journalism possible is taking a back seat. At just the wrong time, I think. As a journalist, obviously my bias is in favor of aggressive and fair reporting. And any situation in which that's impeded, obviously, is deeply concerning to me. Thank you so much. Brooke, thank you. Max Tanney is the media editor at Semaphore and co-host of the podcast Mixed Signals. Right after we recorded this interview, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that Paramount is in talks with the FCC to make concessions over their EEI initiative. Coming up, turns out it's never too late to rewrite history. This is On The Media. With over 9,500 five-star reviews of their app and website, Ground News is a top platform that allows you to discover how any news story is being covered, giving every perspective all in one place. Expand your view of the news. Sign up for your Ground News account today and get access to the mobile app, website, browser extension, and exclusive newsletters so you can have a well-rounded view of the world, think critically about what you read, and find common ground between perspectives. Go to groundnews.com slash WNYC today to get 40% off the Ground News Vantage Plan and get access to all of their news analysis features. That's groundnews.com slash WNYC for 40% off the Ground News Vantage Plan for a limited time only. Can we invest our way out of the climate crisis? Five years ago, it seemed like Wall Street was working on it until a backlash upended everything. So there's a lot of alignment between the dark money right and the oil industry on this effort. I'm Amy Scott, host of How We Survive, a podcast from Marketplace. In this season, we investigate the rise, fall, and reincarnation of climate-conscious investing. Listen to How We Survive wherever you get your podcasts. This is On the Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Ellinger. Everything old is new again in America, now and always. I go back to, like, what I learned about the Woodward-Bernstein-Nixon thing at Watergate that was all essentially an intelligence operation. Have you ever listened to that? This is podcaster Joe Rogan in an episode of his show released this week. They tried to get Nixon out of there, the most popular president in the history of the country in terms of the vote. And they were successful. Rogan made the same claim last month during his interview with actor Bill Murray. It was a complete intelligence operation. Nixon definitely did the things they accused him of. But the whole thing was sort of coordinated by the intelligence agents to get Nixon out of office. That Rogan has repeated this conspiracy theory three times on his show is a coup for the decades-long movement to rewrite the history of Watergate and rehabilitate the 37th president. We're still learning a lot about Watergate, particularly over the last couple of years. There's been a number of new revelations regarding the Watergate special prosecutor's files. This is a 2024 C-SPAN interview with Jim Byron who has since been appointed to a senior archivist role at the National Archives by Donald Trump. The story of Watergate isn't over. It remains endlessly fascinating. And I think that what it's revealing is that there is this great thirst for a fuller understanding of President Nixon. Byron, who is not a historian, was the president and CEO of the Nixon Foundation and its library, one of 16 presidential libraries administered by the National Archives. But it only joined the nonpartisan National Archives system in 2007, at which point a fight broke out around how the Nixon Foundation had been presenting the history of Watergate to the public. Many observers noticed that even by the standards of presidential libraries, the tone was aggressively partisan. Historian Michael Konsiewicz wrote an article for Time.com about this effort to rescue Nixon's legacy. There were lines that were critical of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the reporters who uncovered Watergate. There were lines that attacked John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. The tone was more aggressive. And that's because it was a private library. But that changes in 2007. Under the leadership of then-director John Taylor, this was a close aide to Richard Nixon in the 1980s and 90s, he strikes a deal with the National Archives to join the federal presidential library system. You were working there, right? You witnessed some of the tension between these two institutions firsthand? I did. I started working at the Nixon Library in 2010. Our staff was trying their hardest to create a new exhibit about Watergate to explain the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon's resignation in a textbook way. That was a struggle because the Nixon Foundation changed their leadership during this time and got rid of the individual who made the deal with the National Archives. And in their places were people who were much more protective of Richard Nixon's legacy. They pressured the National Archives to not support this exhibit. Fortunately for our staff, the exhibit went up in 2011, and it's still there to this day. The fact that it was such a long process speaks to the fact that the Nixon Foundation and their supporters did not agree that Watergate was a settled subject. They saw it as a battle in their campaign to rehabilitate Richard Nixon's legacy. And that battle over the historical memory of Watergate and Richard Nixon is very much still alive. In mid-February, Trump declared on Truth Social that the president of the Nixon Foundation, Jim Byron, would act as senior advisor to Marco Rubio, the current acting archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration. This seems to be a big win for the pro-Nixon camp, right? They're basically running our nation's archives at this point. Why is this bigger than just a battle between historians? We can break this up into two parts. What's at stake is, for one, an attempt to weaken the National Archives' ability to frame history in a non-partisan way to the American people. If you cannot agree on the standard story of Watergate, then what can you agree to? That's why this battle matters so much. Richard Nixon still, to this day, his approval ratings are fairly low. There was a Gallup poll, I believe, in 2023. I think he was around 32-33%. And so he's still generally seen as an unpopular president. What has changed, though, is Richard Nixon's crimes were seen as exceptional 50 years ago. And those crimes are not seen as nearly exceptional as they once were. Richard Nixon's crimes are instead seen by an increasing number of American people, conservative or otherwise, as sort of run-of-the-mill politics. In the years immediately following his resignation, most conservatives didn't want to touch Nixon with a 10-foot pole. But there were a few outspoken voices that tried to clear up his legacy. What were they saying, and were they getting any traction at the time? They were enthusiastic supporters of Richard Nixon. I mean, Pat Buchanan was one of Richard Nixon's top speechwriters. G. Gordon Liddy went to prison for the 37th president of the United States. Because he was one of the organizers of Watergate himself. Yes, G. Gordon Liddy was in the lookout building across the street from the Watergate Hotel. He's part of the Plumbers Unit. He, nevertheless, though, sees Richard Nixon as a martyr for the conservative movement that was trying to counter the social movements of the New Left. Movements for racial justice, for gender equality. Pat Buchanan in many ways, Watergate reinforced his views about just how important of a figure Richard Nixon was for the conservative movement. This is true of other conservatives. M. Stan Evans, longtime conservative activist, told the journalist slash historian Rick Perlstein in the mid-2000s, I never liked Richard Nixon until Watergate. Reading the Watergate transcripts actually made him more of a fan. Prior to that, he saw Nixon as this complicated ideological figure who conservatives could not trust because his domestic record, and to a certain extent even his foreign policy record, did not follow conservative values. But when he read the Watergate transcripts, he liked the fact that Nixon hated the New Left so much. That Nixon's dark side was so much a part of his personality. And I think for several decades, it's fair to assume that was true of many other conservatives who kept those views secret. What's happened in the last decade is with the rise of Donald Trump, a lot of those conservatives have come out of the closet as Nixon supporters, or they themselves have rediscovered Nixon and realized that, hey, this is the president that we should focus on. Not Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. As Christopher Rufus says, Richard Nixon has been modeled for counter-revolution. What about Donald Trump? What do we know about his views on the 37th president? The two actually met each other in New York in the 1980s. They had some mutual friends, people like Roger Stone, Roy Cohn. Nixon and Trump had several encounters. There is even a letter that Donald Trump framed for Richard Nixon where Nixon said, you have a future career in politics if you want it. Donald Trump kept that letter and framed it in his office. What I think is more important is the people who Trump surrounds himself with. That suggests that he is at least willing to take Watergate revisionism quite seriously. Roger Stone, longtime close advisor to Donald Trump, he has a small museum of Nixon memorabilia. He has a tattoo of the 37th president on his back. A giant tattoo. Yes, yes, yes. The symbolism isn't exactly subtle here. And in 2019, he even mentioned Richard Nixon's legacy when he was asked about not firing Robert Mueller. I learned a lot from Richard Nixon. Don't fire people. He did not always follow that advice, but I think it's interesting that he mentioned that during a pivotal moment during his first term. Here is J.D. Vance with a bit of foreshadowing speaking at the National Conservative Conference in 2021. This is how he ended his speech. There was a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40, 50 years ago. He said, and I quote, the professors are the enemy. The quote he includes in his speech comes from the Nixon White House tape. This was a source of shame even among Nixon supporters for many decades. And now J.D. Vance is bragging about this conversation and speaking about it favorably to a crowd of national conservatives. Tell me about some of the other narratives that conservatives have been pushing about Nixon and Watergate. You mentioned Christopher Rufo before. How has he been talking about Nixon? In summer of 2023, Christopher Rufo puts out a 10-minute video on his website. Although Nixon failed to realize his ambitions during his presidency, he still holds the key to understanding America's ongoing cultural revolution and how to defeat it. And so Rufo is telling his fans that if you are uncomfortable with today's left, then you need to look to Richard Nixon for inspiration. In that video, Rufo pointed to Nixon's use of law enforcement to go after political dissidents. He refers to Nixon's so-called counter revolution against the New Deal and Great Society government programs. Basically anything in government that could be associated with progressivism. And ultimately he argues Nixon wasn't some disgraced leader who chose to resign in scandal, but rather that he was the target of a deep state conspiracy. Harper's editor Jim Hogan, former Nixon aide Jeff Shepard, and other researchers have uncovered tens of thousands of declassified documents that reveal the black hand of the state as a prime mover in Nixon's demise. Yeah, what these figures often neglect to even acknowledge is that Richard Nixon committed crimes and we have taped evidence. We also have tons of evidence to show that Richard Nixon repeatedly tried to use the IRS for political purposes. He targeted hundreds and hundreds of individuals whose only crime was opposing Richard Nixon's presidency. None of these Watergate revisionists will ever fully acknowledge the evidence that is easily accessible to the American people that proves that Richard Nixon was guilty of a crime. Tucker Carlson, former Fox News host, he's in this Richard Nixon revisionist movement. Tell me about his role in all of this. Tucker Carlson seems to start caring about Nixon and Watergate around 2017-2018 in the middle of the Mueller investigation into Donald Trump and Russia. And in 2018, Carlson visits the Nixon library. He speaks in their replica at the East Room and he tells the crowd I have never been here and I was just stunned by what I'd missed. Later on when he loses his show on Fox News and he starts a new show on X, he actually brings on Jeff Shepard, one of the most well-known Watergate revisionists. He's gone as far to say that the CIA was out to get Richard Nixon. He apparently has even convinced Joe Rogan of this. So why did they want to get rid of Nixon? First of all, we don't need to know motive to happen. They, meaning unelected federal employees got rid of Richard Nixon, which is the most anti-democratic way to make a leadership change that there is. Back to today, all of these people, Christopher Ruffo, Tucker Carlson, the people at the National Archives, why are they trying to rewrite the history of Watergate? What is the modern day political use in changing how Americans think about this moment in the 70s? The idea that the clear majority of the country could be so repulsed by a president's authoritarianism, well, let's try to throw that out the window. Let's make sure that never comes back again. And so if they can poke enough holes in the standard story of Watergate or the American public's understanding of Richard Nixon, if they can get casual consumers of history to understand that, hey, maybe Nixon wasn't as bad as he thought he was, then what that will do is make it far harder for another Watergate to ever happen again. There are so many storylines to keep track of, so many attacks on federal agencies and parts of our government that we've long taken for granted. What's your pitch to listeners for why they should be paying attention to what's happening at the National Archives? Why does it matter? If we can't document our own history, particularly the history of presidential crimes, then almost anything could be manipulated. If we can't trust the federal government to handle these basic facts of U.S. history, then what can we trust them with? Michael, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Michael Konsiewicz is a political historian and the associate director of New York University's Institute for Public Knowledge. Coming up, yes, there is hope for restoring and preserving the whole American story. This is On The Media. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...