Whenever you see a piece on some branch of natural sciences in popular media (e.g. newspapers), odds are overwhelmingly in favor of said piece being trite, utterly boring, poorly written and not in any way informative, regardless of what academic level the reader has achieved. If the writing isn't boring, it's old-school sensationalist disturbing, typically related to health ("Drinking diet soda will give you brain tumors, scurvy and the bubonic plague", or "How following our advice from two months ago is gonna give you heart disease") or global warming (which by the way is an issue I take very seriously, but it pisses me off to no end when every front page has "global warming will kill us all" when the weather in Norway is nice and warm for more than two consecutive days, but the same POS journalists invariably stay silent when it snows for a week straight in October, or it's 20 below for more than a week in January). Apparently, journalism is derived from "journal", which is Swahili for "yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded room" and the suffix "-ism", which typically denotes something bad.
Some nuanced coverage that doesn't insult the reader's intelligence is what I'm looking for. This topic is something I've discussed with Kjerstin at her blog on several occasions, predictably without reaching any agreement/grand solution. Basically, I don't agree with the contention that the prerequired knowledge base is the same for reading a piece on science as for reading other types of news, and I don't think that science can be adequately reported at the cost of detail. In other words, I don't subscribe to the Dogbert philosophy of "Don't waste resources improving your product - find dumber customers".
If you actually bothered to read the discussion and feel that I grossly oversimplified our respective standpoints in the above paragraph.......feel free to insert a particularly smug smiley here. 'Cause that's what happens when details are omitted.
Way back in the day, though, science was happenin' in the media. Einstein, Oppenheimer & the rest of the Los Alamos people, Carothers, Feynman...the list goes on. They were heroes of their age. Granted, these were exceptional scientists and amazing discoveries, but the concepts they championed weren't exactly simple, and neither was the way the theories were communicated. Still, this was reported as big news - complete with huge profiles on the scientists - and way back in the day (up to and perhaps including the sixties) a significantly lower percentage of the population completed higher education than today. So if science was newsworthy and read by everyone when the average educational level was way lower - shouldn't it work better today? What else was different?
Were the journalists better back then? I can't really think of a good reason why that would be true. However, one important difference is the level of competing media outlets then and now. Compared to, say, the 1950's, the sheer number of publications, radio stations, tv channels etc. today is completely overwhelming. In turn, this probably leads to the need for shorter sound bites, a higher image-to-text ratio, so that's obviously one difference. It doesn't necessarily explain the embarrassing lack of serious media coverage science experiences today, though. Is it just that nothing cool has been invented/discovered since the 60's? Absolutely not.
But guess what - science used to be cool, and academic achievements were something to be proud of. It was OK to skip levels at school if you found your present level was too easy. Norway included. Now? Not in an equalitarian country like Norway, where the ideal is that everyone's at the same level. That works out the same way as assuming that the geometric average of a survey represents an actual population segment - not at all. Nevertheless, it's not PC to rank students, nor is it PC to rank schools.
Curiously, this does not apply to sports, or the bizarre cross-section between sports and education - the elite athletic high schools or whatever they are (Toppidrettsgymnas/Idrettsgymnas). Here, it's totally cool to a) rank the schools and b) rank the students according to their achievements. Nobody complains about this, and yet it's a part of the public school system. Maybe that's got something to do with the fact that athletes are among the heroes of our time - 19-year olds who can't form coherent sentences. Nor will they be able to do this after their careers are over and they've got jobs as sports commentators. Wonderful. Other role models of our time include the profession known as "glamour models". I can think of several other names for both the occupation and the people who do it for a living.
And the funny thing is that the same people who need to have science dumbed down to single-syllable words don't seem to have this problem when it comes to anything pertaining to sports. If some soccer player gets a connective tissue injury, the next day every single person is a freakin' physician, with surprisingly detailed knowledge about the injury and possible outcomes, treatment strategies, etc. They actually bothered to look up information because the topic at hand was cool.
If we make science cool again, we can elevate the level at which science is presented in the media. Only then can science get the media coverage it deserves - not by dumbing down the material. In one of the aforementioned discussions, one person commented that becoming a journalist only requires two years of (not so challenging) education. That's actually not bad, compared to the absence of any formal requirements for becoming minister of education. Or even prime minister....
Posts
26 comments:
"Basically, I don't agree with the contention that the prerequired knowledge base is the same for reading a piece on science as for reading other types of news"
So basically, what you're saying are: If it's a news piece concerning math in general or fractions in specific, both you and me are screwed?
Is that a hint of sarcasm I detect?
Do you see my point, though?
On a more serious note: You do raise some interesting topics there. Here are some of my random thoughts about this subject:
First of all, it's surprising how little science journalist knows. I don't believe that journalist that writes a piece about economics, politics or, even better, sports has so that little knowledge about the topic in hand. Not that you need to have a PhD in math and physics to write about the green house effect, but know at least enough not to embarrass yourself when a kid with high school physics read it.
Also, as you mentioned, I think that even if we daily are surrounded by high tech devices and science (cell phones, TV, cars, computers, etc, etc), sciences is less and less a part peoples common knowledge base. Maybe due to the fact the user interface for such devices demands less and less knowledge of the operator. But this lack of knowledge is weird, since internet give people access to a waste selection of scientific topics. And, when it comes to medicine, people use the internet. I really don't see why it should be easier to read up on, say, Alzheimer's decease, its cause and possible treatments then to check out what the ozone layer is.
I guess it's become fashionable to know next to nothing about sciences. No need to be embarrass if you can't add three digit numbers or you think that anything "synthetic" is bad and will guarantee you cancer.
So, does this mean that the general media should not cover scientific topics? Yes, I mean they should. But, first of all, at least get the facts at least half right. Journalists in general needs to start taking the science a bit more serious and stop being ignorant. It does not really take much get from ignorant to a point were you have a basic understanding of how sciences work. They managed with economics or politics, so why not with science? Second, we do need some sciences in the media, at least to slow down the process of dumbing down the society and have a counter weight to the glamour models sports jocks. And third, it is actually a refreshing challenge for scientist to be able to summarize (not simplify!) their research in a short paragraph. It’s easy to get lost in details when you have spent so much time and effort on a subject. It might even help them focus their research. However, we have scientific journals with detailed articles for the expert.
And don't get me started on the minister of education...
"Is that a hint of sarcasm I detect?"
No, it's not a hint of sarcasm...
"I guess it's become fashionable to know next to nothing about sciences."
I completely agree with your assessment - I mean tru, tru. The moronic philosophy of "keeping it real" is causing some serious socio-economic chasms. When being a 'baller or a convict is considered to be way cooler than getting an education and contributing to society, you can almost see social dividing lines form and widen in real-time.
"Journalists in general needs to start taking the science a bit more serious and stop being ignorant. It does not really take much get from ignorant to a point were you have a basic understanding of how sciences work."
The first part I agree with, the second part I only agree with if taken from the reader's point of view. It's a long way from having a basic understanding of how science works to accurately reporting about a subdivision of science. For example, when I occasionally read Gemini, I typically can't figure out how a concept in a given article works, even though it might be in, or close to, my chosen branch of science. The reason for this, excluding for a second that I might be a complete moron, is that no detail is given. Rather, buzzwords like "nanostructured" are liberally strewn thoughout the piece, together with overly simplified schematics which might as well be replaced by some Terry Pratchett-style explanation that reactants form the desired product by way of an enchanted demon.
I wonder how much time journalists actually take to research a topic before writing about it. When I write an article for publication in a scientific journal, I typically have to read a bunch of papers or so just to read up on the subject. 100-200 journal articles, just to ballpark it for a major research article. Even if this is a quite narrow subject and I know more than a little bit about it.
I'm not saying the same rigor needs to go into an article for bergens Tidende or whatever, but a bigger effort than what is put forth now is definitely required. Anyone can condense a huge body of work into one paragraph. Even a short one. However; to condense said body of work into one paragraph without grossly simplifying the work takes someone with more than just a general notion of science.
"Journalists in general needs to start taking the science a bit more serious and stop being ignorant. It does not really take much get from ignorant to a point were you have a basic understanding of how sciences work."
The first part I agree with, the second part I only agree with if taken from the reader's point of view. It's a long way from having a basic understanding of how science works to accurately reporting about a subdivision of science.
I think we agree on this point. Just to let me clarify on my point: Journalists need to have a basic knowledge of sciences. So that if they report a news story, like an accident with some chemical spill, they have a fighting chance to report the accident without messing up the science bit (e.g. naming wrong chemical, etc, etc.). This is something every journalist should know.
But for a feature article about a scientific topic, the writer needs a bit more knowledge about sciences in general and do some research on the topic. Then there are magazines specializing in general sciences (e.g. Illustert Vitenskap), which demands even more of the writer, and a further step up the ladder there are subject specific magazines, often published by groups of scientists (e.g. Teknisk Ukeblad, Kjemi, etc) up to scientific publications in Nature and such where you have to be an expert in your field.
However, my concern is foremost on the news journalist that knows nothing about sciences and reports a news story full of errors just because science was a minor part of the story. Then the journalist reflects the general attitude towards science these days (i.e. it doesn’t matter, it’s something for the nerdy and brainy people) and contributes to dumbing down the public. When this improves, the marked for in depth features about scientific topics will also grow.
..tru, tru......we have an accord.
..so what do you really think about the minister of education?
;-)
I hope I didn't come across as someone who advocates dumbing down science in the media, because that's not my intention at all. On the contrary, I think there's way too much dumbing down going on already, and if it were possible to write a science story that's both reader-friendly and gets the facts right, that would be heaven.
That said, you forgot to mention one more change that has happened to the media since the 60ies: They have changed from aiming at presenting a wide variety of facts in order to educate the public, to aiming at generating profits for their owners. I'm sorry to say that this affects which kinds of news are given priority. Generally, something has to be considered important and relevant to the majority in order to get media coverage. Like politics (“Read about how the evil politicians plan to make gasoline even more expensive for you!”) or economics (“Here's how the new tax rules will affect your income!”) or celebrities (“You guys wanted to read about Britney yesterday, so we give you a piece about her today too!”). But science? Apparently not so much. (“Read about how this ground-breaking new knowledge of protein folding will affect your daily life!” I don't think so.) I'm not saying this is how it should be, only that this is the way it is. Unfortunately, science is fundamentally not newsworthy from most editors' point of view. So, the result is that whenever science makes it to the media, it's because it meets the only news criteria it can hope to meet: The sensation criterium. (“Gene therapy caused woman with cancer to grow a third leg!”) And in order to fit the sensation criterium, you inevitably need to dumb down your science story, because if you tried to fit in all the details and the “on the other hand” and “this is not yet conclusive”, you immediately define your story as not newsworthy.
Sadly, the days of education through the media are over. Also, the need to increase profits means that it's impossible for journalists to read everything they should have read in order to understand the science they're writing about properly. Journalists simply don't have that kind of time.
This is why I think that we need to get away from the traditional way of presenting science (i.e. the “let me tell you about my recent results that have incrementally increased our understanding of so-and-so”). Instead we need to present it as something that matters to society. Or even better: To celebrities :-)
I think the main problem is what you've both mentioned: That science is usually perceived as un-cool. It's perfectly ok not to know anything about science. This, I think, is the greatest challenge when it comes to media coverage.
Kjerstin: I was just making a point regarding the importance of including details, because their absence is inducive to bias. It was just a throwback to our earlier discussion.
Your point regarding the focus shift from education (or news, actually) to profit with news as a byproduct is well taken - I agree.
Cool that we have an accord on the importance of image - I think that's the biggest problem right there.
Kjerstin,
you make some good and valid points about why media does not cover science any more. And I think we all agree that the days with glamour and science groupies are long gone.
However, one point I'd like to hear your thoughts about why media can't report science correct. Simple facts that should be easy to understand, e.g. in the 90's, half of the newspaper articles mixed hole in the ozone layer and green house effect. Today it is really easy to verify simple facts; internet provides is a huge source for (more or less) accurate information, and with cell phones and e-mail, it should be really easy to quickly get in contact with an expert. But journalists seldom go through the trouble of checking up scientific facts. Why? They seem to have much less problem with economics or politics, which isn’t any easier then science.
The problem of journalists not bothering to check/find facts is more of an accountability problem, though.
Of which there is none, apparently. 'Cause in damn near any other business, if you're told to write up a report on any phenomenon/field and what you write up turns out to be garbage because you didn't bother to check facts, you're screwed. The "I didn't bother to check 'cause there wasn't time" ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework".
You don't want your doctor to make up some bogus diagnosis or health status because he/she didn't bother doing research or consult with/refer to experts. If you work in R&D and you're asked to make a literature review on some topic and a deadline, you don't just read the top five google hits, copy-and-paste and then call it a day, because you're accountable for what's got your name on it. When the deadline is utterly unrealistic, it's your responsibility to say so.
If you don't bother reading a contract before you sign it, don't complain if there's a clause wherein you basically agree to tattoo the company logo of whatever product you buy to your forehead, then STFU and find the nearest tattoo parlor.
Do you think Sudbø should be left off the hook if he just said "Yo' Honor; I didn't actually do the research on account of not having enough time, so I just made shit up. Given more time and moolah I could do some experiments to back up my previously ficticious data"?
If you don't know jack about particle physics, don't agree to writing a comprehensive review about it with two days' notice.
Do you think Sudbø should be left off the hook if he just said "Yo' Honor; I didn't actually do the research on account of not having enough time, so I just made shit up.
Apparently, Sudbøsaid just that. Or nearly the same; he can now start working as a dentist, but (surprisingly enough) his medical doctoral thesis is still withdrawn...
If you don't know jack about particle physics, don't agree to writing a comprehensive review about it with two days' notice.
Agreed, but still, they manage to get their facts more or less straight when it comes to economics and law, subjects which are basically just as complex as science.
Agreed, but still, they manage to get their facts more or less straight when it comes to economics and law, subjects which are basically just as complex as science
Maybe it's because they actually bother to contact people, do a search or they actually know a li'l something about it themselves. I don't think I'm way off base if I say that journalists are more inclined to check their facts if their potential screwups are likely to be exposed on some debate show like Holmgang by someone like Hegnar from Finansavisen, or that pathetic dude from Dine Penger who desperately tries to be Hegnar but doesn't quite manage to pull it off.
The prospect of having a scathing review about your piece in Gemini doesn't have quite the same deterring effect as the above example.
I still don't think that articles on science necessarily need to adhere to the sensationalism standard. Rather - education and the the prevailing attitudes found in the educational system are the silver bullets. Which brings me back to asking why there are no formal requirements whatsoever to become minister of education? Why is it that you need to take an exam (written + practical) to become a bus or taxi driver, or even go to school for three years or whatever to work in a kindergarten, but you don't need any formal qualifications to be the minister of education. Yet you make decisions on what is best for educational facilities which grant doctorates, not to mention the research council.
We don't have the right to make fun of choosing an actor as governor (i.e. Arnold) or even President (Reagan) considering some of the ministers in this administration. That's just flat out hypocrisy on our part. Come to think of it, anyone who voted for the present government should STFU about the IQ of Bush also.
It would however be fun to make an article about the compositional breakdown of plastics in different actresses/actors.
Which brings me back to asking why there are no formal requirements whatsoever to become minister of education?
I wouldn't worry too much about his formal background, if he did a good job. However, the current minister seems to have more feet in his mouth then on the ground these days...
The cornerstone of the democracy we have today is that there shouldn't be many formal requirements for holding an elected political position. Like it or not, but that's how the system works. That said it would be an advantage to have a couple of educated and experienced people in some of the positions...
We don't have the right to make fun of choosing an actor as governor (i.e. Arnold) or even President (Reagan) considering some of the ministers in this administration.
In all fairness, after a rocky start, Arnold has done pretty well as a politician. Much to my surprise. And Reagan wasn't that bad; he had good advisors which he actually listened to. Not saying that I liked his politics or that it is healthy for the democracy to have a puppet president...
Come to think of it, anyone who voted for the present government should STFU about the IQ of Bush also.
No matter what I vote, I still demand the right to make fun of Bush's IQ! And the same goes for the current minister of education in Norway. And the minister of finance. And the dodgy family background of the prime minister. On second thought, stroke the last one. That one is just too easy...
Actually, I think having a PhD or equivalent should be a requirement for being minister of education. Otherwise you bring the mindset of the highest completed education you've got, and the way things are run in high schools and whatnot is way different from how universities run things. Lack of first-hand knowledge is quite fatal, as demonstrated by the recent cuts to the NFR budget, despite the fact that almost every political party states that research should acccount for 3% of the GNP.
And no; if you voted for the party where the current minister of education is firmly positioned, you don't have the right to call Bush Jr. stupid. Much like the fact that Michael Jackson cannot call anyone weird - he's totally lost that privilege. You can say that you don't agree with Bush politics, but you can't question his intelligence if you essentially voted for Djupedal.
Permission denied!
Actually, I think having a PhD or equivalent should be a requirement for being minister of education. Otherwise you bring the mindset of the highest completed education you've got, and the way things are run in high schools and whatnot is way different from how universities run things.
Sorry, mate. We got a democracy, not a technocracy. And remember that the minister of education does not only cover higher education and research, but also kindergartens and so forth. The mindset of one with a PhD in particle physics may not be the same as someone how have taught preschool kids...
The problem is that the current minister of education does not have experience or education within any of the sectors within his ministry. Nor have he shown any particular interest in these fields in his political career. And on top of that, his performance as a minister sofar has been substandard.
if you voted for the party where the current minister of education is firmly positioned,
is not the same as
Come to think of it, anyone who voted for the present government should STFU about the IQ of Bush also
since there are three parties in the current government. And I'm willing to bet that the other option (also a three party government) wouldn't just have star candidates for all the minister positions...
Also, in defence of the SV voters, we don't have direct election of ministers, as with governors and president in the US. The voters didn't know that Djupedal was candidate for the position as minister of education on election day.
However, no matter who wins the next election and what government Norway gets, I'm willing to bet that Mr. Djupedal isn't minister of education anymore.
Sorry, mate. We got a democracy, not a technocracy. And remember that the minister of education does not only cover higher education and research, but also kindergartens and so forth. The mindset of one with a PhD in particle physics may not be the same as someone how have taught preschool kids...
But if you've got a PhD, you've been through all the steps, as opposed to someone who dropped out after junior high. Thus, you've automatically got more insight, because you've got personal experience throughout. Are you telling me that you'd be cool with a minister if finance who isn't familiar with the concept of money? Oh, wait..... ;-D
And by the way; during the election this time, we got a pretty good idea of the candidates said party was going to push for different positions, so actually, this time we had prior knowledge.
since there are three parties in the current government. And I'm willing to bet that the other option (also a three party government) wouldn't just have star candidates for all the minister positions...
And that sucks, because when you vote for a party, you're probably not in 100% agreement with their policies, but it's the one you're closest to. But if that party is included in a three-party government, the odds of you seeing any of the policies you voted for goes down drastically.
You're right - there's been some horrible ministers over the years, but you must admit that this government has had some severe problems, what with one of the parties being in opposition with itself, contradictions between parties, between ministers, etc. The minister of foreign affairs comes through looking like a genious though, both because he is more than competent and because it's like answering math questions next to Paris, Nicole and Ozzy Osbourne.
But if you've got a PhD, you've been through all the steps, as opposed to someone who dropped out after junior high. Thus, you've automatically got more insight, because you've got personal experience throughout.
Well, just because you were a snotty kid in kindergarten, doesn't mean that you have an experience that is very relevant for determine how many kindergartens to build and the educational plan for preschool...
You're right - there's been some horrible ministers over the years, but you must admit that this government has had some severe problems
Nah. Except for the prime minister and the ministers of education, finance, government administration, healthcare, defense, fisheries, equality, regional development, transport, cultural and church affairs, environment, trade and industry and petroleum and energy they aren't half bad.
But ironically, the minister of environment is qualified for being minister of church affairs, and the minister of government administration would be suited to be minister of children or education...
(Yeah, I looked it up!)
Surprisingly, the minister of agriculture actually has a relevant degree. And the minister of justice has practiced as a lawyer for more then 10 years.
But basically, I agree with you that the minister of foreign affairs has done a good job. But I will also add the minister of justice to that (short) list of good ministers in this government.
Now look what you've done. I told you not to get me startet on the minister of education...
Well, just because you were a snotty kid in kindergarten, doesn't mean that you have an experience that is very relevant for determine how many kindergartens to build and the educational plan for preschool...
...but at least I've been through all the steps, meaning I've got first-hand experience. For some reason, most people feel it's relevant for the minister of justice to have practiced law, and that the minister of foreign affairs should have some experience with international relations. Yet for some reason this does not apply to education, where this is much easier accomplished than for, say, culture.
If someone's giving you advice on, say, travelling in Peru, you'd feel more confident in their assessment if you knew they'd actually been there. The don't necessarily need to be native, but at the very least they should have been there if they're to give advice.
At least we know why there isn't written more about science in media; even we switch to politics when science is the topic...
I think we basically agree that a minister should have some experience or education or what-ever that is relevant. However, we disagree on one point: I mean that it is important for the democracy that "uneducated" people with experience as working class citizens should be able to hold powerful position in politics (that's why I don't like "career politicians, but that's a different discussion). The government should reflect the people.
That's why I feel that people without first hand experience or relevant experience could hold a ministry position, if the have shown a genuine interest within a relevant area through-out their political career. I also realize that some of the areas covered within a ministry are too board for one person to have interest/experience in, but a minister should at least have one or a few relevant areas of interest.
That's why I feel that minister of education is placed in the wrong ministry. OK, he hasn't any education or relevant experience, but more important, he hasn't shown any interest in education previously. Foreign politics has been his field through-out his political career. But in the end, he has made some dumbass decisions and remarks, which is really the reason why he has done a bad job, regardless of how many of my "formal" requirements he lacks.
So, what do you think, should Lee Priest run for president, or should he first aim at a governor position?
Actually, you vote for a political party and that's that. If you vote for a smaller party, you probably don't even vote for the prime minister candidate, as the end result is very likely to be a coalition government.
After that, democracy ends, and ministers are chosen by the wonderful processes of a) haggling over which party leaders get the most prestigious positions and b) the prime minister candidate picking out prospects for the remaining minister positions from the different parties (approximately according to the normalized precentage of votes for each party).
The voters don't get a say in who becomes ministers, both for practical reasons (likelihood of coalition government) and more obtuse reasons, as mentioned above.
The government does not represent the general population, though, and never has since the middle ages. I respectfully decline the invitation to join your hallucination.
First, you must actively want to become a national-level politician, which excludes the vast majority, and you must have ties to a political party (membership), which removes another big chunk of the population. Factor in that certain professions are overrepresented in local politics as compared to the representation in the populace as a whole. The government is never representative. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing - it's just the way it has to be - but that's a major illusion.
I thought we moved on from discussing science in media coverage because we agreed on the major points, i.e. the primary problems being public perception and journalist accountability. Hence the change of topic...
I think Lee Priest is screwed as far as becoming President, seeing as how he's from Australia. Not so sure if he'd do a good job as governor either, TBH........
Well, I'm not living under the illusion of having a government that reflects the general population. I just think that we should not have a "professional" government of just people with long education and experience within that area, i.e. a technocracy.
And we basically agrees that the system has its flaws, especially with regards to who becomes politicians and why. I really don't have a brilliant solution to correct the problem either.
Besides blowing of steam and basically listing what we agree upon, I don't see where you're going with your last comment?
(Well of course, you revealed my lack of knowledge about body-builders, but I guess that wasn't your main point. I promise to read up on the subject!)
There has to be a point now?
I was just pointing out that the elected parties pick the candidates they feel are best suited for the different jobs for one reason or another. Since that choice is out of our hands and thus beyond the borders of democracy, I'd rather that the government parties pick out the people who they agree upon are the most qualified for each position, instead of doling out minister positions to high-ranking members of the various parties.
In my (not very) humble opinion, this government did an abysmal job of hiring several of the other ministers, including (but not limited to) education, environment, culture and finance.
That being said; if I REALLY wanted to just blow off steam, I'd go to other blogs and post that SV has a Clintonesque "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" quality when it comes to being full-blown, Stalinistic old-school, pipe-smoking, bicycle helmet-wearing, "International"-chanting, envious, unproductive, whining, soft science-studying, herd mentality-upholding secret admirers of the Soviet Union circa 1950's, and watch the ensuing meltdown.
But I'm way too much of a nice guy to do something like that.
I'd rather that the government parties pick out the people who they agree upon are the most qualified for each position, instead of doling out minister positions to high-ranking members of the various parties.
Very true!
In my (not very) humble opinion, this government did an abysmal job of hiring several of the other ministers, including (but not limited to) education, environment, culture and finance.
No, they just couldn't limit the incompetence to just a few ministers, could they?
But I'm way too much of a nice guy to do something like that.
Way too nice.
Besides, you used way too many and too long words to get any respons in such a blog...
Post a Comment