Having coming out of reading The Elements of Style, reading William Zissner's On Writing Well is more spiritual pep-talk than sly reference book. While the former book has a section on using orthodox language, Zissner's manifesto on good writing hammers the idea home. He doesn't have any patience for jargon at all.
It has the power to make someone like myself look over my shoulder. Is my vocabulary stuffed to the brim with figurative cliches? Is my plentifully verbose vocabulary cluttered out? Do I just turn a noun into a verb? I have to credit this book for these new concerns.
Some of these feelings have already been mutual. For example, the concept of journalese is something that I have been aware of, though not nearly to this person's level. I recall something Ira Glass said that any creative act naturally gravitates towards mediocrity. Journalese is the word to describe that happy medium. While Zissner stresses that we need to imitate others in order to learn, his is referring to the conscious kind where we pick apart our favorite writers and incorporate some of their styles. However, journalese embodies all the cliches that we subconsciously pick up while reading journalism. It is remarkable that many journalists (myself included) secretly know how to speak this language.
Having graded essays for a living, I can safely say that students also naturally know how to write in essay-ese as well.
If there's any underlying tension in reading On Writing Well it's the understanding of colloquialisms that my generation employs into daily usage. Zissner is an old man and he's lived long enough to see our language being reinvented by people much younger than him. The generation I speak for, Gen-Y, has more of its share of lingo mostly pertaining to the online world. Much of this lingo is transforming words into other parts of speech or stretching the definitions to fit new contexts, particularly on the internet. What people my age have done to language isn't bad by any means. But we must not take it lightly, either.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
RL7 - on The Elements of Style
For years I have been bouncing professionally with my two studies, Journalism and English. The first, infrequently as a contributing writer to college publications. The second, I've held as a paying job as a lab tutor at a local college. While it seems like studying the two can be complementary, both cultures promote impulses that conflict with each other. Journalism doesn't care much for the run-on sentences that were encouraged by my essayist professors. English writing is usually ordered logically around a thesis and not a nut graf. Given that, I've done my best to keep the two worlds in harmony.
One of my biggest concerns as a tutor were the books that were assigned to students at the lowest levels of English literacy. Students who have been out of the loop as far as the rules of grammar were usually assaulted with metalanguage and theory which discouraged most students from having a love of language. For them I wished I knew William Strunk and E.B. White's The Elements of Style.
Honestly this is the Rosetta Stone I've been looking for to connect these two worlds. With good humor, the book demonstrates practical advice that can provide structure for organizing prose. In plain English, it'll empower the layman to write in plain English, giving sentences thrust and purpose. If you want to put your writing through the looking glass, I can't think of a better book. It has definitely allowed me to put my own biases into scrutiny.
My favorite advice comes from E.B. White's An Approach to Style which immediately calls into question many biases of mine. It has articulated to me the very nature of clean prose. Think with nouns and verbs instead of adverbs and adjectives. Speak in active voice (learning what active voice is would be empowering to the average writer). It has highlighted problems within my speech and writing, like my abuse of modifiers like "pretty much", "suppose", "I think". After giving it a long thought, I've realized that I depended on these modifiers to act as a way to regulate my assertiveness into the realm of self-deprication.
What affects me most about An Approach to Style is becoming aware of the inherent poetry to style and cadence. It may not be immediately clear to some as to why certain things sound better than others, but one realizes that good writing requires conducting the kinetic energy of a sentence. For instance, if you want to provide strength to a point that you want to highlight, say it at the end. See what I did there?
I can only think of those students who were trying to grasp basic English writing again for the first time in ten or twenty years. For them, The Elements of Style is the book I would recommend to provide a head start, leaving the student eager to put these elements into practice. For the writer, this is the book that you need to wear on your sleeve.
One of my biggest concerns as a tutor were the books that were assigned to students at the lowest levels of English literacy. Students who have been out of the loop as far as the rules of grammar were usually assaulted with metalanguage and theory which discouraged most students from having a love of language. For them I wished I knew William Strunk and E.B. White's The Elements of Style.
Honestly this is the Rosetta Stone I've been looking for to connect these two worlds. With good humor, the book demonstrates practical advice that can provide structure for organizing prose. In plain English, it'll empower the layman to write in plain English, giving sentences thrust and purpose. If you want to put your writing through the looking glass, I can't think of a better book. It has definitely allowed me to put my own biases into scrutiny.
My favorite advice comes from E.B. White's An Approach to Style which immediately calls into question many biases of mine. It has articulated to me the very nature of clean prose. Think with nouns and verbs instead of adverbs and adjectives. Speak in active voice (learning what active voice is would be empowering to the average writer). It has highlighted problems within my speech and writing, like my abuse of modifiers like "pretty much", "suppose", "I think". After giving it a long thought, I've realized that I depended on these modifiers to act as a way to regulate my assertiveness into the realm of self-deprication.
What affects me most about An Approach to Style is becoming aware of the inherent poetry to style and cadence. It may not be immediately clear to some as to why certain things sound better than others, but one realizes that good writing requires conducting the kinetic energy of a sentence. For instance, if you want to provide strength to a point that you want to highlight, say it at the end. See what I did there?
I can only think of those students who were trying to grasp basic English writing again for the first time in ten or twenty years. For them, The Elements of Style is the book I would recommend to provide a head start, leaving the student eager to put these elements into practice. For the writer, this is the book that you need to wear on your sleeve.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
RL6: Public Records
Requesting public records is a very impersonal and tenacious task. Reading sample request letters is a lesson in learning to speak legalese, constantly citing legal codes and being absolutely specific. It's the closest I'm going to be to being a lawyer.
The following is my deconstruction of the typical public records act request:
[Date]
[Department Name & Address]
Dear [Name]
Under [Act], [Gov't Code]. I am writing to request [Very Specific Thing].
If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this request, please call me at [My Phone Number]. Also, please let me know when it's available to pick up.
[Appreciation and Thanks]
Sincerely,
[My Name and Address]
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
RL5: Interviews, cont'd
More thoughts on trying to "engineer" interviews:
The act of questioning is inherently provocative. While the interviewer shouldn't be afraid of silence (given all the reading I've done on interviews, it's a rookie concern), one still has to wrestle the rhetoric in order to keep the flow of thoughts going, so it's best to stage your questions so they are answered loosely and comfortably. "Icebreaking" talk is a must, because an interview should strive to have the cadence of actual conversation.
The interviewer has to rely much on wit to phrase things to get natural responses, so it's best to incorporate phrases like "start at the beginning..." into hindsight to want to influence the listener to give you a surplus of information.
Reading plenty of interviewing theory is making me question my own methods, which have been tested sporadically in the past year or so. This may seem trivial for some, but we have to hammer these concepts into our method of speaking since we're trying to engineer not only a conversation but also an article.
The act of questioning is inherently provocative. While the interviewer shouldn't be afraid of silence (given all the reading I've done on interviews, it's a rookie concern), one still has to wrestle the rhetoric in order to keep the flow of thoughts going, so it's best to stage your questions so they are answered loosely and comfortably. "Icebreaking" talk is a must, because an interview should strive to have the cadence of actual conversation.
The interviewer has to rely much on wit to phrase things to get natural responses, so it's best to incorporate phrases like "start at the beginning..." into hindsight to want to influence the listener to give you a surplus of information.
Reading plenty of interviewing theory is making me question my own methods, which have been tested sporadically in the past year or so. This may seem trivial for some, but we have to hammer these concepts into our method of speaking since we're trying to engineer not only a conversation but also an article.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
RL4 - Becoming a Good Interviewer
Christopher Lydon's "Letterman List" of Interviewing tips really made me think about what it means to interview, while making me think how many of these concepts are applicable to plain communication.
A good interviewer should be able to engineer the conversation to provoke emotions. I know this can easily be construed as "make people angry", but what I really have in mind is this: imagine you're at a party with a bunch of people you don't know. No one is looking at eye to eye and everyone has their guard up. We've all been in that situation. But a good interviewer should be able to get everyone to lighten up and bounce to life. Suddenly arms aren't crossed- they're flailing wildly on the whims of the topic that they're clearly enjoying indulging in.
The advice of establishing three points serves to guide the interviewee as to the scope of what this person could reach in his or her dialogue. You may not naturally get responses as thorough as you'd like, but that's what follow-up questions are for. But it's all about spirit, and spontaneity is the stuff of what makes an exciting conversation.
Ultimately, a good interviewer is a manipulator. But not an impersonal one. You get to listen to someone and provoke them to share with you a little slice of themselves. It is the art of empathy.
A good interviewer should be able to engineer the conversation to provoke emotions. I know this can easily be construed as "make people angry", but what I really have in mind is this: imagine you're at a party with a bunch of people you don't know. No one is looking at eye to eye and everyone has their guard up. We've all been in that situation. But a good interviewer should be able to get everyone to lighten up and bounce to life. Suddenly arms aren't crossed- they're flailing wildly on the whims of the topic that they're clearly enjoying indulging in.
The advice of establishing three points serves to guide the interviewee as to the scope of what this person could reach in his or her dialogue. You may not naturally get responses as thorough as you'd like, but that's what follow-up questions are for. But it's all about spirit, and spontaneity is the stuff of what makes an exciting conversation.
Ultimately, a good interviewer is a manipulator. But not an impersonal one. You get to listen to someone and provoke them to share with you a little slice of themselves. It is the art of empathy.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
RL3 On The Subject of Interviews
Sometimes when I am reporting I have to remind myself that journalism isn't necessarily as linear or as logical as the end results may make it seem. As the "Do's and Don'ts of Interviewing" says, sometimes you have to make a call for the most minute of details. That's the sort of thing that calls out my insecurities. Even when an interview goes over OK and I'm feeling positive about the experience, I crack up over calling back to clear a tiny detail up. What it takes to get what we take for granted in the news everyday takes experience and it takes plenty of effort, in with that effort is carried emotions that are invisible to the consumer.
Given my jitters, I do think I have the capacity to be a decent interviewer. But it depends on two things: experience and punctuality. I must do all of these things within time of deadline. I've been in situations where essential phone calls are done just the night before and I bet the person on the other line can hear my exasperation. When the call is over I am in great relief, but I feel wistful about the interview that I could've had. But, then again, this also depends on insecurities that are at the core of inexperience. I'm looking forward to doing more interviews consistently.
Listening back to some of my earlier interviews I've done over the years, many are filled with vocal compulsions like saying "yes", and "right" as a sort of rhetorical agreement. I contrive these mannerisms to make the interviewer feel comfortable, but the truth is I am only trying to assuage my own doubts. Eye contact and nodding are more than enough to get an interviewee's confidence.
I like how this handbook makes the case for silence. While I'd like the maintain a fine pace, getting the job done right is far more important. "Awkward" silences is all part of the fiction of radio and television. Listeners feel entitled to a pace that generally goes against adequate reporting. Why worry about it? The end result can be as measured as you can edit it to be. But don't compromise your interviews with an unnecessary need for expeditiousness.
One of my biggest motivations is to become a better listener. I want to be able to process these things quickly and turn them into something useful. I'd like to see to good answers and provide good follow up questions in hindsight. I also want to be a better speaker. Both are going to take plenty of experience.
Regarding Rule #8, "Ask questions that make people think instead of react": The people's interest has to be at the heart of every story. To take situations as they are is simply prefunctory and do not provoke any sort of response from the reader. It just becomes white noise on a newspaper or on the internet. I've had this experience in an early draft of a town meeting I wrote about last week. I covered the items on the agenda, but I was missing a substantive public reaction, which I did have, but I didn't use very well. What good am I as a reporter if I don't make the human interest front and center? I might as well have publised the agenda in that case. In any case, I have to try to assess what the public will gain the most from the thing that I am covering.
I want to approach every interview with earnestness and with a willingness to listen. But it all depends on my ability to do the job right. I need to carry experience and punctuality on my sleeve.
Given my jitters, I do think I have the capacity to be a decent interviewer. But it depends on two things: experience and punctuality. I must do all of these things within time of deadline. I've been in situations where essential phone calls are done just the night before and I bet the person on the other line can hear my exasperation. When the call is over I am in great relief, but I feel wistful about the interview that I could've had. But, then again, this also depends on insecurities that are at the core of inexperience. I'm looking forward to doing more interviews consistently.
Listening back to some of my earlier interviews I've done over the years, many are filled with vocal compulsions like saying "yes", and "right" as a sort of rhetorical agreement. I contrive these mannerisms to make the interviewer feel comfortable, but the truth is I am only trying to assuage my own doubts. Eye contact and nodding are more than enough to get an interviewee's confidence.
I like how this handbook makes the case for silence. While I'd like the maintain a fine pace, getting the job done right is far more important. "Awkward" silences is all part of the fiction of radio and television. Listeners feel entitled to a pace that generally goes against adequate reporting. Why worry about it? The end result can be as measured as you can edit it to be. But don't compromise your interviews with an unnecessary need for expeditiousness.
One of my biggest motivations is to become a better listener. I want to be able to process these things quickly and turn them into something useful. I'd like to see to good answers and provide good follow up questions in hindsight. I also want to be a better speaker. Both are going to take plenty of experience.
Regarding Rule #8, "Ask questions that make people think instead of react": The people's interest has to be at the heart of every story. To take situations as they are is simply prefunctory and do not provoke any sort of response from the reader. It just becomes white noise on a newspaper or on the internet. I've had this experience in an early draft of a town meeting I wrote about last week. I covered the items on the agenda, but I was missing a substantive public reaction, which I did have, but I didn't use very well. What good am I as a reporter if I don't make the human interest front and center? I might as well have publised the agenda in that case. In any case, I have to try to assess what the public will gain the most from the thing that I am covering.
I want to approach every interview with earnestness and with a willingness to listen. But it all depends on my ability to do the job right. I need to carry experience and punctuality on my sleeve.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
RL2 - Myriad Thoughts on Journalism
1. The First Amendment -
We've all heard the phrase "it's a free country!" thrown about arbitrarily, usually in spite of some form of dissent. The truth is that our freedoms were never ubiquitous to begin with, and we have to remind ourselves of that fact routinely. They were, after all, amended onto our constitution, and that is more than enough proof for me to view the constitution not as gospel but rather a perfectly human construct full of ambiguities and logical loopholes. The first amendment guarantees us the right to our freedom of (and from) religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly, and despite those guarantees, we still slave over the meaning of those, too. Take a look at http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html to find out just how much the meaning of about 45 simply written words can be abstracted and fought over.
2. SPJ Code of Conduct
As a student of Journalism, I've found reading the SPJ Ethics is very affirming and motivating. There were times between semesters where I've felt as if I may have forgotten a rule or two, and returning to this list is very grounding. I recommend anyone who is interested in producing content for the internet to read it. Amateurs who might be intimidated with "getting it right", given the cruel nature of the internet can find solace here with it's concise rules, which should guide any prospecting writer to produce worthy and truthful content.
3. New York Times v. Sullivan
Simply, this case should be on the sleeve of every Journalist and media critic. Becoming aware of the phrase "reckless disregard of the truth" more than halves the effort in deciding what is libel in casual conversation.
4. Hutchins Commission
A concise and "classical" description of the press of there ever was any. Among it's basic platitudes (http://www.uiowa.edu/~c019168/168s6online2b.html), it makes the point that self-regulation is the very checks and balances of maintaining freedom of the press. Does the basic nature of the internet pose a challenge to these ideas, however? With the internet providing an easy access to adult and perhaps obscene content, along with malicious and hateful speech and piracy, it isn't unusual to find someone conflating these with the freedom of expression. If this continues uncontested by private entities, is the government right to step in? I believe this is one of the major challenges to libertarianism in the new century.
5. Kerner Commision
I find it absurd that some believe that this document actually redeems rioters within poverty. Acknowledging the root causes of civil unrest isn't the same as condoning them. The findings of the document should be the bottom line in discussing the oppressed classes. A lack of representation in the economy and the media and a culturally indifferent police force are the ABC's of a mistrustful lower class filled with malaise.
6. Peter Zenger and Andrew Hamilton
This makes me go back to basic Journalism Ethics. The truth has to be at the heart of any writing, with no room for rumors or anything of that sort. Truth is always the best defense.
8. The Pentagon Papers
Here's a funny anecdote. I have seen a stage adaptation of "The Pentagon Papers" once. Government documents, no matter how riveting, do not necessarily translate well into theater. A complete bore. That being said, it is an absolutely pertinent moment in the history of free speech, one that is more important now that hackers and make the headlines every day. It provokes the question: Would you trust the Supreme Court to decide the legality of how government leaks are reported? Must our freedoms depend on a grayed, legal ambiguity?
9. The Elements of Style
I have never read The Elements of Style. My editing teacher last semester did advise us to read and to memorize it. The reference book I've been most familiar with however is Working With Words, an incredibly heavy book of grammar rules. Upon graduation, I was considering doing my best in memorizing that, but after looking through this book, I may switch books. For example, I like its explanation on possessives, something that doesn't have enough of a consensus amongst writers. The style presented almost stubbornly works against some of the more problematic rules of grammar.
10. Freedom of Information Act
I have never issued a FOIA. Much has been said about what a logistical nightmare that it is to get what you want.
12. Edward R. Murrow's RTNDA Speech
I think this is a genius commentary, trenchant with the wit of someone who is equally devoted and jaded by the whole thing. Here are two of my favorite quotes, which I think have grown exponential in meaning given the rise of internet and social media:
"It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other."
and
" I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is: an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate."
13. A hilarious and incredibly potent document from George Orwell showing the relation of bad language to our social politic. My favorite section is the one where he gives examples of meaningless words, all of which are loaded with meanings that would vary from reader to reader: "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." With great humor, he makes the case that using such language poisons the well of discourse.
14. Magna Carta
While I find this absolutely amusing in it's devotion to the rights of nobility and not much else, it makes me more interested in the other noteworthy legal documents in history that have influenced the constitution. Not much else I can say, honestly.
15. Tom Wolfe & The New Journalism
I recall something my literacy theory teacher said: "It's a pretty lousy time for fiction but it is a golden age for non-fiction." Whenever I read about New Journalism, it's almost immediately followed by its legitimacy as a specific genre and whether or not it is still prevalent in contemporary writing. Honestly I'm not very concerned about that. It is true that literary techniques isn't anything particularly new prior to the 60's (Ernest Hemingway has even incorporated elements of Theater in his articles surrounding the first World War) what we have is a wealth of classic reportage of a specific period, particularly the 60's and 70's. I believe we can agree that whatever New Journalism was, it was a period of bold style and reporting that reached new heights in popularity and social relevance. A golden age if you will.
16. The Brown Act
Today, many of these public meetings are archived on the internet (Santa Monica broadcasts their meetings on the radio) Easy access to recordings and transcription methods would only increase public awareness of what's going on in . But it's not guaranteed. Reporters are always necessary at the scene.
We've all heard the phrase "it's a free country!" thrown about arbitrarily, usually in spite of some form of dissent. The truth is that our freedoms were never ubiquitous to begin with, and we have to remind ourselves of that fact routinely. They were, after all, amended onto our constitution, and that is more than enough proof for me to view the constitution not as gospel but rather a perfectly human construct full of ambiguities and logical loopholes. The first amendment guarantees us the right to our freedom of (and from) religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly, and despite those guarantees, we still slave over the meaning of those, too. Take a look at http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html to find out just how much the meaning of about 45 simply written words can be abstracted and fought over.
2. SPJ Code of Conduct
As a student of Journalism, I've found reading the SPJ Ethics is very affirming and motivating. There were times between semesters where I've felt as if I may have forgotten a rule or two, and returning to this list is very grounding. I recommend anyone who is interested in producing content for the internet to read it. Amateurs who might be intimidated with "getting it right", given the cruel nature of the internet can find solace here with it's concise rules, which should guide any prospecting writer to produce worthy and truthful content.
3. New York Times v. Sullivan
Simply, this case should be on the sleeve of every Journalist and media critic. Becoming aware of the phrase "reckless disregard of the truth" more than halves the effort in deciding what is libel in casual conversation.
4. Hutchins Commission
A concise and "classical" description of the press of there ever was any. Among it's basic platitudes (http://www.uiowa.edu/~c019168/168s6online2b.html), it makes the point that self-regulation is the very checks and balances of maintaining freedom of the press. Does the basic nature of the internet pose a challenge to these ideas, however? With the internet providing an easy access to adult and perhaps obscene content, along with malicious and hateful speech and piracy, it isn't unusual to find someone conflating these with the freedom of expression. If this continues uncontested by private entities, is the government right to step in? I believe this is one of the major challenges to libertarianism in the new century.
5. Kerner Commision
I find it absurd that some believe that this document actually redeems rioters within poverty. Acknowledging the root causes of civil unrest isn't the same as condoning them. The findings of the document should be the bottom line in discussing the oppressed classes. A lack of representation in the economy and the media and a culturally indifferent police force are the ABC's of a mistrustful lower class filled with malaise.
6. Peter Zenger and Andrew Hamilton
This makes me go back to basic Journalism Ethics. The truth has to be at the heart of any writing, with no room for rumors or anything of that sort. Truth is always the best defense.
8. The Pentagon Papers
Here's a funny anecdote. I have seen a stage adaptation of "The Pentagon Papers" once. Government documents, no matter how riveting, do not necessarily translate well into theater. A complete bore. That being said, it is an absolutely pertinent moment in the history of free speech, one that is more important now that hackers and make the headlines every day. It provokes the question: Would you trust the Supreme Court to decide the legality of how government leaks are reported? Must our freedoms depend on a grayed, legal ambiguity?
9. The Elements of Style
I have never read The Elements of Style. My editing teacher last semester did advise us to read and to memorize it. The reference book I've been most familiar with however is Working With Words, an incredibly heavy book of grammar rules. Upon graduation, I was considering doing my best in memorizing that, but after looking through this book, I may switch books. For example, I like its explanation on possessives, something that doesn't have enough of a consensus amongst writers. The style presented almost stubbornly works against some of the more problematic rules of grammar.
10. Freedom of Information Act
I have never issued a FOIA. Much has been said about what a logistical nightmare that it is to get what you want.
12. Edward R. Murrow's RTNDA Speech
I think this is a genius commentary, trenchant with the wit of someone who is equally devoted and jaded by the whole thing. Here are two of my favorite quotes, which I think have grown exponential in meaning given the rise of internet and social media:
"It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other."
and
" I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is: an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate."
13. A hilarious and incredibly potent document from George Orwell showing the relation of bad language to our social politic. My favorite section is the one where he gives examples of meaningless words, all of which are loaded with meanings that would vary from reader to reader: "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." With great humor, he makes the case that using such language poisons the well of discourse.
14. Magna Carta
While I find this absolutely amusing in it's devotion to the rights of nobility and not much else, it makes me more interested in the other noteworthy legal documents in history that have influenced the constitution. Not much else I can say, honestly.
15. Tom Wolfe & The New Journalism
I recall something my literacy theory teacher said: "It's a pretty lousy time for fiction but it is a golden age for non-fiction." Whenever I read about New Journalism, it's almost immediately followed by its legitimacy as a specific genre and whether or not it is still prevalent in contemporary writing. Honestly I'm not very concerned about that. It is true that literary techniques isn't anything particularly new prior to the 60's (Ernest Hemingway has even incorporated elements of Theater in his articles surrounding the first World War) what we have is a wealth of classic reportage of a specific period, particularly the 60's and 70's. I believe we can agree that whatever New Journalism was, it was a period of bold style and reporting that reached new heights in popularity and social relevance. A golden age if you will.
16. The Brown Act
Today, many of these public meetings are archived on the internet (Santa Monica broadcasts their meetings on the radio) Easy access to recordings and transcription methods would only increase public awareness of what's going on in . But it's not guaranteed. Reporters are always necessary at the scene.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)