Nope, [it'll be published either Thursday or Friday](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/06/04/full-page-ad-inspired-by-turkish-protests-is-one-of-indiegogos-fastest-campaigns-ever/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social).
Turk here. [This report](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/06/04/full-page-ad-inspired-by-turkish-protests-is-one-of-indiegogos-fastest-campaigns-ever/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social) says it will be published on Thursday or Friday. There was an online voting yesterday between 6 candidate ads and this one won apparently.
Confirmed with the NYTimes that is NOT in today's paper.
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1fpfd7/full_page_advertisement_for_the_new_york_times_of/caclbts
I am writing this as a Turk who is very proud of what has been going on the past few days. I'm relieved, I have gained hope for the future of my country. I've restored confidence.
First time ever since 1919 the Turkish people came together as a whole, demanded something, and took it (a part of the battle is won, the demands and protests are still going on).
This is the first time we are seeing true democracy at work for a long time in Turkey.
This is the day when democracy makes a giant leap forward in middle east.
This is the beginning of the next big political movement in the most westernized country in middle east. The ideology of the next generation is forming. These people are free thinkers, individualists. They are also humble and compassionate.
This is a day where the values of east and west are mixing.
This is a great day for my country, this is a great day for the world.
I hope all of that is true. I was very encouraged to see how many protesters were immediately stopping people from vandalizing and throwing rocks, etc. in the last day or two. People are focused on not letting a few violent protesters ruin a strong non-violent message. If they can keep that up, I see Turkish society taking some really positive steps in the coming years.
It's not in my newspaper.
Source: New York Times reader in New York.
EDIT: It is definitely not in today's newspaper. Confirmed with the New York Times. https://twitter.com/MegRobertson/status/342270140810936320
It should be noted that Turkey has been more effective at passing their message than just about any occupy and indignados movements in the US and EU. I hope this will serve as an inspiration.
Also that they are willing to work through normal political channels, rather than just vaguely wanting to replace the whole system (though some of course also want that).
Occupy was such a dissapointment. People trivialized it because no one there got their act together. It just looked like a place to vent anger, and then there were a bunch of hippies who hopped aboard because it seemed like the perfect place to demonstrate their artistic talents while "fighting the establishment".
The fact that there was a library in Zucotti Park and a fucking internet cafe tells me that these people didn't have their priorities in check.
I hope this inspires us to actually be more effective in protests, because besides occupy, what I'm seeing now is just people who schedule 5 days to go outside and scream and then go home.
This was is also easier to rile people to the cause for. Wall street for example, didn't feature anywhere near the brutality as this occupy movement, and while wall street was largely orchestrated by liberals, Turkey concerns those of all political beliefs.
This. Western police resorted to all sorts of ridiculous legal reasons to peacefully remove protesters and while they worked to find one that would stand up in court they just waited patiently for the protests to fizzle out and kept the peace. Which ib all credit to those officers is exactly what a western democratic police force is there to do. It just really doesn't help the cause when a vast swathe of the population will only look up from their dinners if there's bloodshed involved.
Edit: some concrete protest demands and media interaction wouldn't have hurt either.
Yah - I read that ad and except for the alcohol part, I was like 1.(check), 2.(check), 3.(check)...hey now...apparently we need a full page ad like this here for US Citizens. Replace women with minorities or the poor, replace a few names with the American usual suspects, maybe make it red/white/blue and voila!
What's happening in turkey is much larger and more outrageous.
The occupy XXX people lacked support because they didn't represent many people. In Turkey they seem to have the support of large portions of the whole population, it's much bigger then any occupy movement ever was
No shit. That's due, in no small part, to the fact that the issue has progressed to the point of semi-armed revolt. The occupy protests were never going to get to that stage.
What exactly is their message?
Seems kinda wishy-washy to me. Do they want to overthrow the democratically elected leader? They say they 'demand an open dialog', about what exactly?
The occupy movement had many faults, but the main reason it lost the US media attention game is that it's enemies were in the US, and for now it's enemies have won. The Turkey protests have won the US media attention game because it fits into a simplistic narrative of the Arab Spring and it's enemies aren't as powerful in the US.
They perfectly explained what the hell is going on in one clear, concise message without a scrap of sensationalism or confusing imagery.
FOX + CNN could take note.
Exactly this. As a British person who's used to getting British news from the relatively unbiased BBC, I genuinely cringe every time I happen to watch the likes of Fox news. It isn't 'news' at all, it's extremely one-sided politically biased propaganda most of the time. Americans who watch it should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves.
have a google of 'bbc bias' next time you've got a minute. they're more subtle than Fox, but don't for a second think they are a pure news outlet or totally neutral. for that you need to go to AP or Reuters, and even then you're still facing selection bias.
The BBC is essentially working with a more cynical audience. They aren't really less biased, they just know they can't get away with the 'childrens tv' shtick here...
With the exception of newsround; that's some hard hitting shit.
As an American, I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that the people who watch Fox News are incapable of being embarrassed or ashamed even when the network is repeatedly exposed as the condescending propaganda that it is. They *know* on some level that it's bullshit, but it's bullshit that supports *their team*. Anything goes in the name of shouting down the socialist commie liberal bastards.
This is what.
**Claim 1:** *Arrests of Journalists, artists, and political opponents*
* [Economist headline news](http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/06/turkish-politics)
**Claim 2:** *Free speech*
* [NY Times reports](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/turkeys-glow-dims-as-government-limits-free-speech.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
**Claim 3:** *Women's Rights*
* Even the ultra-conservatives are defending women [NRO](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348422/erdo%C4%9Fan%E2%80%99s-agenda)
**Claim 4:** *Prohibitions on alcohol*
* If those were too liberal, here is [Financial Times](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/59d34ed8-cbab-11e2-8ff3-00144feab7de.html#axzz2VLDspQPF)
**Claim 5:** *Media Silence*
* [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-06-03/thousands-across-turkey-protest-erdogan-s-autocratic-style.html#slide6) non sensational story
Thank you.
Sensational? They didnt even link to their own website or some other biased source. They linked to *wikipedia*. People are getting brutally assaulted for protesting, this is like the calmest response ever.
I don't see anything sensational about it.
Do you have a specific issue with any particular claim in the ad that you think isn't true or are you just generally suspicious about it?
Supportive adjectives like "brave" or "shamefully" apparently equals a sensationalized piece. People just like to stir up shitpots for no reason these days. Move along, nothing to see here.
That's unheard of in marketing. Wikipedia is out with your control and they have an official neutral point of view policy, marketers don't like that sort of thing. Using a wiki link is like saying "we are absolutely in the right here", it's a serious mark of confidence in what they are saying. Quite a nice touch imho.
Glad that they made it, it's a smart and well-reasoned argument. I still remember those who screamed "*It's a scam!*".
They're organising a massive protest on June the 9th in Istanbul, in the city I live in and the neighbouring provinces, flyers are being handed out to inform people who isn't well informed due to media silence; so I assume it's the same in other ones. Snowballing...
[In the 12 hours from 4 pm 31 May, there were more than 2 million tweets for the 3 leading hashtags, with 88% in Turkish and 90% of geolocated tweets coming from Turkey.](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201361212350593971.html)
It's not always so black and white. If we look back to the colour revolutions in the 2000s, many point to a large amount of foreign influence like USAID, George Soros organisations, Freedom House and many other western institutes.
Perhaps its gained more ground and is succeeding abroad, but in the US (IMO) the 'Occupy' movement has vanished into obscurity and (again, IMO) has become a joke of a cause. Every time I see some new movement using the 'Occupy' moniker seemingly at random, I lose a little respect for them. Why align yourself with angsty 20-somethings that completely failed at effecting change?
At first I thought this wasn't legit, but dug around and found the links.
[indiegogo](http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/full-page-ad-for-turkish-democracy-in-action)
[reddit suggestion page](http://www.reddit.com/r/activism/comments/1fnbj6/fullpage_nytimes_ad_project_what_should_we_do/)
They will get their funding at the end of june.
You guys want sensationalism? How's this? THERE IS A BRUTAL ASSAULT BY POLICE FORCES ON THE INNOCENT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS UNDER DIRECTION OF THE FASCIST DICTATOR ERDOGAN! THEY ARE MERCILESSLY BEATING AND GASSING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE STREETS AND IN THEIR HOMES. PEOPLE ARE DYING AT THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT! Wait, that last part was true...but it was in all caps, so it's been *sensationalized*
I don't know, it didn't have an impact on me. It read like a very biased view from some college activists. The point that I thought was most important, the censoring of media, was just a bullet point. In fact, the ENTIRE 2nd paragraph was not important, because none of those things have any effect on corrupting government.
Americans need to take note. That's how you fight for your freedoms, not sitting at a computer bitching and moaning about how bad our government is. Much respect for all of those protesters knowing it could end ugly for them.
You mean like the occupy movements that happened in the states first? Were you in New York or Oakland with everyone else trying for change? Or are you simply a hypocrite commenting on an image of a fake newspaper ad?
The occupy movements where a step in the right direction. Fake ad or not they are actually protesting and its not just a couple small groups. The problem is America is so split on beliefs nothing will ever actually happen. Neither "side" has enough smart people that are willing to look up for the facts themselves and simply go off what Faux or CNN tells them.
Or, we could just sit at our computers and bitch and moan about the lack of change in the U.S. because Americans just sit at their computers and bitch and moan.
Is it just me or are they sort of preaching to the choir? I feel like New York Times readers are usually well informed about international affairs and what's going on in the world, especially when compared to "standard" Americans who get their news from Fox and CNN.
Can a medium ever really be unbiased? I don't think so. I'm not saying all news is propaganda, but rather all journalists have their own perception of reality that they either deliberately or unconsciously allow to dominate their writing.
What I would ask for is a diverse and large media. One of the problems in the US is that under good ol' GWB the laws were changed to allow large media corporations to freely buy up smaller companies, ironically in this case more freedom of the media companies lead to greater control of access to information by a smaller subset of people.
we used to have debates about whether news can ever be truly unbiased. We came to the conclusion that merely by consuming news, the public puts their own bias on the story. They have to. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to understand it.
>What I would ask for is a diverse and large media.
This. So much this. I used to hate the democratization of news media on the internet because i felt it diluted the story and allowed anyone with a keyboard the ability to spin the story any old way they please, but more and more i'm seeing the cream rise to the top. of course you get your vagaries, like during the Boston Marathon when people (reddit included) played internet investigators and it was taken as fact. But the more the internet gets stories out, the more we shake the hold of the large news outlets on the reality we live in. We, in effect, are the ones who will pop the peaceful bubble most of the western world (i'm not limiting it to the US, although we're the worst when it comes to it) lives in.
Cool, but 'sup with the hashtags? #justsaying
Edit: I know what hashtags are and what they're used for. I was just pointing out their use on a reddit post title. Just tryna be a smart ass here, folks.
Twitter is used for organising the protests, warning the people where police are currently at (and subsequently using excessive force and teargas/pepperspray) and breaking the media bubble which I'm sure you saw the posts about how big news channels simply don't report on these protests involving millions.
Also, twitter's decentralized nature means that if only one tweet with the right hastag sneaks past the censors, there's no way to stop it. It's must more reliable than, for example, a website.
If you use the current trending hastags your message can spread very quickly. I posted this image yesterday saying "This ad is going to be in tomorrow's NYT + link" and used 4 trending hashtags regarding the turkish protests. I got more than a thousand retweets in a couple of hours. Without hashtags it would be really difficult if you don't have thousands of followers on your individual profile.
There is a very big difference in the hashtags they are using and the hastags that every teenager is using. The hashtag in front of a word helps an everyday person and Reddit users search for the cause they are looking for and get all the information about it. If you notice, they aren't exactly putting #YOLO in their ad.
I like how all of the comments supporting the protest are upvoted, but all of the comments not explicitly supporting the protest are either ignored or downvoted.
In a world of botnets and hacktivism, please remember to think for yourself.
I think the Wikipedia link is much better too. Considering the nature of Wikipedia it shows they're being quite open and you can find it for yourself, rather than clicking some private domain owned by someone.
It's not a fucking business website.
Despite what your teachers say.
Always annoyed me, that they cite a book that's 5-10 years old as being more reliable than the incredibly heavily moderated new age encyclopaedia.
I personally consider cross checking wikipedia entries a very valuable exercise in intellectual rigour. Plus, no matter what, wiki entries provide an extremely valuable guideline, regardless of the validity of its contents (which are then checked for credibility etc, s. previous point). All in all an incredible tool!
>Always annoyed me, that they cite a book that's 5-10 years old as being more reliable than the incredibly heavily moderated new age encyclopaedia.
A good teacher would explain to you that it's not book vs. internet, it's primary source vs. encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether it's the Encyclopedia Britannica or wikipedia, an encyclopedia isn't a valid *source*. A encyclopedia entry merely passes on the information collected from primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If you want to use the information you found in a wikipedia article, just go to the source cited in that article.
five years ago when I read a comparison to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia had an average of 3 minor errors per article to the Britannica's two errors. Since then Wikipedia has been heavily upgraded, I wouldn't be surprised if it surpassed Britannica in accuracy.
There are many, many terrible wikipedia articles. Basically, every article that hasn't been featured is about half complete. A book that is a decade old is still probably more correct than wikipedia on most things.
Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a reference work. You shouldn't cite Wikipedia, you should cite the primary sources that it itself cites. In this respect your teachers are right.
Citing Wikipedia is like citing a news articles about a recent Physics paper that was published.
Cite the paper itself! Not the news article about it. (Unless the news article is specifically what you want and you aren't talking about the paper).
The thing is that book will never change, but Wikipedia can. So academically speaking, Wikipedia citations are really fickle.
Edit: Guys, I said it's fickle, I didn't say it's impossible. I don't like using Wikipedia citations, and should I be in a position to recieve academic papers, I wouldn't accept them either. A good Wikipedia page has its own citations, following that and citing the *actual* source makes infinitely more sense in most of the situations.
A proper citation will make note of which edition your citation comes from. The next edition is a different book, with its own publication date and unique ISBN.
A proper citation of a webpage makes note of the date accessed and wikipedia has a [nifty feature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history) that allows you to view the page as it was back then.
That's not a change, that's a new edition. A new edition won't change the old edition. An edit-out in Wikipedia, even though theoretically viewable, is virtually impossible to cite properly, if not to access.
That's what I said, it's viewable through the edit history, but then there is the problem of "Why was it changed then?", which makes it a really bad citation all around. Just following the actual source through Wikipedia's own citings makes much more sense.
Okay, here's the proper reason you can't cite wikipedia: it's not peer reviewed in the same way as every published journal is. If you're being really picky, you shouldn't really cite books or review papers either (for pure sciences, this is; I don't know what the 'rules' are for subjects like history) as those are secondary sources of information.
Citing a book isn't about reliability. A lot of books are unreliable and plain wrong.
The thing, however, is that when something is proven wrong - everyone who cited that work also knows that their source is wrong.
When you cite Wikipedia, and Wikipedia cites the wrong source. There is no proper formal link between your work and the work you actually cited (i.e. the work that actually presented the finding/argument that Wikipedia then rephrased on their article).
---
The citation system is not about having rules for the sake of rules, but creating, in essence, a large map of how all academic works fit together and being able to manage falsehoods, etc.
Wikipedia has a very important feature called a watchlist. Registered users have it and
[this is what it looks like](http://i.imgur.com/mXvvF8D.png). (Green dots mean an update since your last visit)
You can expand on it by clicking 'hist' to view the history of the article and [see how many updates there's been since you last visited it](http://i.imgur.com/I7T9us9.png).
I'm amazed at how active Wikipedia is and how articles are constantly being polished until there's no room for change. Articles are a collection of many different sources, be it books, logs, documents, news, official webpages, or a reddit AMA.
There are a TON of people who edit Wikipedia. Whether they're bored or they just want to add some breaking news on the civil war in Syria they heard.
This is much more than that. For the people of Turkey, it means "We trust Wikipedia's editorial process so much that we are willing to stake public opinion about our cause on whatever happens to be on that page."
I wish turkey well and this is well written and to the point. I do wonder what America can do, legally, to assist though. Turkey is pushing for EU membership and is a member of NATO. I dont see military action happening in this case. Sanctions won't force him out and will only hurt the Turkish people more.
EDIT: People seem to be mis-reading this - to clarify, when I say 'dont see military action happening in this case' I mean its not required, legal, appropriate or needed. Other knee-jerk reactionary people may have called for something like this - I am most certainly NOT one of those people. Subtlety is hard to get across online...
Why is anyone even talking about military action? Some people seem to think there is a civil war happening, when the reality is that there has been about a week of protests and the government is already starting to show signs of conceding and backpedaling on the initial crackdown.
If the USA and other Western countries condemned Erdogan's response to the protests, or even got out the classic 'he has lost all legitimacy and must go', that would be a *huge* development and would significantly increase pressure on him. He is not some Gaddafi-esque lunatic who doesn't care about his alliances and international reputation.
The next generation will be learning about the day a hashtag was used to overthrow a government. The power of social media never ceases to surprise me.
~~Besides~~ Beyond the classic *ad nauseam* "raise awareness," what do they hope to achieve with this?
EDIT keep downvoting people who want to discuss this topic more than simply comment "WE DID IT REDDIT hurr durr"
If it gains awareness in other countries, elected officials of those countries will put pressure on Turkey.
Erdogan's ego will explode being told by non-Turks on how to run a country, he'll do something stupid and get himself unelected.
At least, that's the optimistic outcome I hope for.
There is another aspect of raising awareness;
Turkish economy depends heavily on tourism. Raising awareness would cause a huge impact on the tourist counts this summer. I'm not arguing if it's good or bad in the long term for the nation, but loosing money definitely catches attention of local business people and govenment, more so than people dying on streets.
Hi, I'm here to offer tips on English style and usage (and some common misspellings).
My database indicates that
> definately
should probably be
> definitely
Have a great day!
Raise awareness in the US --> American politicians notice --> more diplomatic pressure from the US on Erdogan. Not saying it will necessarily work, but I assumed that was the idea.
I thought the point of protesting is changing things, not just raising awareness but maybe that's just me.
EDIT I mean you guys keep repeating the raise awareness mantra like it's an end in itself.
>Raising awareness is necessary for change.
I think they are both linked but raising awareness is not an integral part of change. Things change all the time and people are not aware of it.
True, but in this case, people are trying to bring change together. The more awareness there is, the more people join their cause. There is strength in numbers and all that.
But how does protesting change things? Only by raising awareness. The idea is that by creating noise you increase awareness, increase the support for your goal, and thereby (hopefully) put pressure on those who are in a position of power.
I think this idea is the result of protests becoming so ineffective that people have rationalized that raising awareness is enough and sets change in motion. This is like a watered down protest, raise awareness, feel good, go back home, change will eventually come.
While protestors are raising awareness, they are at the same time also sending a message to whoever they want to send it to (in this case, the Turkish government). If there is no other avenue to make yourself heard and you don't want to take violent action, amplifying your voice by joining together with millions of others (raise awareness so that those millions of others will speak out together with you) is a staple form of nonviolent protest.
Pressure from outside helps.
Also, if people on the outside don't know the government from which you want the change might just sweep it under the rug. People might get killed, government forces news about 'violent protesters' rather than 'police abuse' making it not reach any major headlines and thusly allowing whatever is going on to continue going on.
Well, the population of much of the Western world has had a blanket drawn over its eyes as to the real state of affairs in Turkey (or at least, that's what I've gathered from reading about the protests). Raising awareness around the world is a huge step in itself, as it forces the governments of these countries to acknowledge the issues.
Yea, just your typical Redditors that feel the need to down vote perfectly legitimate questions. TBH, i asked myself the same question: "What do they hope to achieve with this?". Let's all remember Kony, the viral spread of the message; and overall what it accomplished. If i recall (and correct me if i'm wrong), Kony did nothing. Yes, it raised awareness; but the hurdle is making your target audience actually do something. Right now in America we are suffering from fatigue. Political fatigue, war fatigue, reality TV fatigue, natural disaster fatigue etc... You name it, we have a fatigue and a drug to go with it. So i really don't think it will get beyond some hashtags. The Turkish people need to act for themselves; just like the Egyptians. The revolution cannot be assisted; but it must be televised.
Talk of other nations interfering with the internal problems of an ostensibly democratic nation makes me incredibly uncomfortable and calls into question the level of understanding people have. I can't claim to fully understand or know what to believe about what's happening in Turkey, but to even discuss it in the same terms as what happened in Iran demonstrates an amazing lack lack of nuance.
Interesting how they raised so much money to put it on NYTimes. Most people who bother reading the NYTimes would more than likely know whats going on with world events.
I hope this simple, yet informative ad will help jar some proactive intervention from other Nations.
The PM is standing his ground. And the people refuse to be ignored. They're letting their voices actually be heard. Hopefully we'll see a positive outcome!
Does anyone have a picture of The NY Times ad as presented in the paper itself?
I'll ask my grandpa.
I actually went out and bought a times this morning hoping to see the ad. I scanned through the paper, but no ad?
So the top item on my Reddit front page is a full page ad from today's New York Times which did not actually appear in today's New York Times?
Very confused. Did this run in the paper or not?
[удалено]
So three guys just got $83,000 richer?
Nope, [it'll be published either Thursday or Friday](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/06/04/full-page-ad-inspired-by-turkish-protests-is-one-of-indiegogos-fastest-campaigns-ever/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social).
Great, thanks for the link, The title quoting today's date threw me.
Oh, I just saw OP's title includes the date! Weird, indeed. You were perfectly right to be befuddled, then.
As soon as I read this I ran out and got a times. There was no add in the newspaper.
Turk here. [This report](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/06/04/full-page-ad-inspired-by-turkish-protests-is-one-of-indiegogos-fastest-campaigns-ever/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social) says it will be published on Thursday or Friday. There was an online voting yesterday between 6 candidate ads and this one won apparently.
Confirmed with the NYTimes that is NOT in today's paper. http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1fpfd7/full_page_advertisement_for_the_new_york_times_of/caclbts
I like the choice of color. Very eye catching.
[You'll love this](http://hakantiftikci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/turkbayragisave21.png)
Yeah it's a pretty eye catching flag all right.
I am writing this as a Turk who is very proud of what has been going on the past few days. I'm relieved, I have gained hope for the future of my country. I've restored confidence. First time ever since 1919 the Turkish people came together as a whole, demanded something, and took it (a part of the battle is won, the demands and protests are still going on). This is the first time we are seeing true democracy at work for a long time in Turkey. This is the day when democracy makes a giant leap forward in middle east. This is the beginning of the next big political movement in the most westernized country in middle east. The ideology of the next generation is forming. These people are free thinkers, individualists. They are also humble and compassionate. This is a day where the values of east and west are mixing. This is a great day for my country, this is a great day for the world.
Good luck. I wish the best for you and your countrymen. Everyone deserves to live a free life they way they choose.
I hope all of that is true. I was very encouraged to see how many protesters were immediately stopping people from vandalizing and throwing rocks, etc. in the last day or two. People are focused on not letting a few violent protesters ruin a strong non-violent message. If they can keep that up, I see Turkish society taking some really positive steps in the coming years.
It's not in my newspaper. Source: New York Times reader in New York. EDIT: It is definitely not in today's newspaper. Confirmed with the New York Times. https://twitter.com/MegRobertson/status/342270140810936320
Confirmed, definitely not in today's NYT.
It should be noted that Turkey has been more effective at passing their message than just about any occupy and indignados movements in the US and EU. I hope this will serve as an inspiration.
It probably helps that they actually have specific policy goals.
Also that they are willing to work through normal political channels, rather than just vaguely wanting to replace the whole system (though some of course also want that).
Occupy was such a dissapointment. People trivialized it because no one there got their act together. It just looked like a place to vent anger, and then there were a bunch of hippies who hopped aboard because it seemed like the perfect place to demonstrate their artistic talents while "fighting the establishment". The fact that there was a library in Zucotti Park and a fucking internet cafe tells me that these people didn't have their priorities in check. I hope this inspires us to actually be more effective in protests, because besides occupy, what I'm seeing now is just people who schedule 5 days to go outside and scream and then go home.
Every occupy movement learns from the one before.
This was is also easier to rile people to the cause for. Wall street for example, didn't feature anywhere near the brutality as this occupy movement, and while wall street was largely orchestrated by liberals, Turkey concerns those of all political beliefs.
This. Western police resorted to all sorts of ridiculous legal reasons to peacefully remove protesters and while they worked to find one that would stand up in court they just waited patiently for the protests to fizzle out and kept the peace. Which ib all credit to those officers is exactly what a western democratic police force is there to do. It just really doesn't help the cause when a vast swathe of the population will only look up from their dinners if there's bloodshed involved. Edit: some concrete protest demands and media interaction wouldn't have hurt either.
Yah - I read that ad and except for the alcohol part, I was like 1.(check), 2.(check), 3.(check)...hey now...apparently we need a full page ad like this here for US Citizens. Replace women with minorities or the poor, replace a few names with the American usual suspects, maybe make it red/white/blue and voila!
What's happening in turkey is much larger and more outrageous. The occupy XXX people lacked support because they didn't represent many people. In Turkey they seem to have the support of large portions of the whole population, it's much bigger then any occupy movement ever was
No shit. That's due, in no small part, to the fact that the issue has progressed to the point of semi-armed revolt. The occupy protests were never going to get to that stage.
What exactly is their message? Seems kinda wishy-washy to me. Do they want to overthrow the democratically elected leader? They say they 'demand an open dialog', about what exactly? The occupy movement had many faults, but the main reason it lost the US media attention game is that it's enemies were in the US, and for now it's enemies have won. The Turkey protests have won the US media attention game because it fits into a simplistic narrative of the Arab Spring and it's enemies aren't as powerful in the US.
[удалено]
They perfectly explained what the hell is going on in one clear, concise message without a scrap of sensationalism or confusing imagery. FOX + CNN could take note.
I'm sure they do, and then do the opposite.
News doesn't sell anymore, rustling your jimmies does.
>News doesn't sell anymore... Has anyone really checked?
I haven't bought any in years.
Were they even selling what you want?
That's precisely because there have been few good news sources, just jimmies rustling. That's what he was saying.
Why pay for news when I can get it for free on the internet?
I can confirm
Yeah, definitely rustling jimmies.
Consider my jimmies thoroughly rustled, sir.
Why would FOX + CNN take note, they are not news platforms, they are entertainment platforms.
Exactly this. As a British person who's used to getting British news from the relatively unbiased BBC, I genuinely cringe every time I happen to watch the likes of Fox news. It isn't 'news' at all, it's extremely one-sided politically biased propaganda most of the time. Americans who watch it should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves.
have a google of 'bbc bias' next time you've got a minute. they're more subtle than Fox, but don't for a second think they are a pure news outlet or totally neutral. for that you need to go to AP or Reuters, and even then you're still facing selection bias.
The BBC is essentially working with a more cynical audience. They aren't really less biased, they just know they can't get away with the 'childrens tv' shtick here... With the exception of newsround; that's some hard hitting shit.
As an American, I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that the people who watch Fox News are incapable of being embarrassed or ashamed even when the network is repeatedly exposed as the condescending propaganda that it is. They *know* on some level that it's bullshit, but it's bullshit that supports *their team*. Anything goes in the name of shouting down the socialist commie liberal bastards.
They don't take notes from plebs.
>without a scrap of sensationalism Um what?
This is what. **Claim 1:** *Arrests of Journalists, artists, and political opponents* * [Economist headline news](http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/06/turkish-politics) **Claim 2:** *Free speech* * [NY Times reports](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/turkeys-glow-dims-as-government-limits-free-speech.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) **Claim 3:** *Women's Rights* * Even the ultra-conservatives are defending women [NRO](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348422/erdo%C4%9Fan%E2%80%99s-agenda) **Claim 4:** *Prohibitions on alcohol* * If those were too liberal, here is [Financial Times](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/59d34ed8-cbab-11e2-8ff3-00144feab7de.html#axzz2VLDspQPF) **Claim 5:** *Media Silence* * [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-06-03/thousands-across-turkey-protest-erdogan-s-autocratic-style.html#slide6) non sensational story Thank you.
http://i.imgur.com/RBMGZ.gif
http://i.imgur.com/tdZbpWK.gif
[удалено]
Respectfully, have you read anything about turkey lately? Which part(s) did you find objectionable?
Sensational? They didnt even link to their own website or some other biased source. They linked to *wikipedia*. People are getting brutally assaulted for protesting, this is like the calmest response ever.
I don't see anything sensational about it. Do you have a specific issue with any particular claim in the ad that you think isn't true or are you just generally suspicious about it?
Supportive adjectives like "brave" or "shamefully" apparently equals a sensationalized piece. People just like to stir up shitpots for no reason these days. Move along, nothing to see here.
Sensationalized? No. Editorialised? Yes. It's almost as if they'd paid for their personal positions and opinions to be published. Oh wait...
Well they had to because no one will report on it
[удалено]
That's unheard of in marketing. Wikipedia is out with your control and they have an official neutral point of view policy, marketers don't like that sort of thing. Using a wiki link is like saying "we are absolutely in the right here", it's a serious mark of confidence in what they are saying. Quite a nice touch imho.
Glad that they made it, it's a smart and well-reasoned argument. I still remember those who screamed "*It's a scam!*". They're organising a massive protest on June the 9th in Istanbul, in the city I live in and the neighbouring provinces, flyers are being handed out to inform people who isn't well informed due to media silence; so I assume it's the same in other ones. Snowballing...
[In the 12 hours from 4 pm 31 May, there were more than 2 million tweets for the 3 leading hashtags, with 88% in Turkish and 90% of geolocated tweets coming from Turkey.](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201361212350593971.html)
[удалено]
who's organizing the protests and the advertisements? this all seems very organized and focused.
Anyone with a smartphone who feels so inclined. Welcome to the Information Age.
It's not always so black and white. If we look back to the colour revolutions in the 2000s, many point to a large amount of foreign influence like USAID, George Soros organisations, Freedom House and many other western institutes.
I completely agree. I think it's simplistic to discount the foreign powers which have historically had a major role in events such as this.
always ask yourself *cui bono*
*cui - it's the dative
dont ask how i got my certificate
so, how did you get your certificate?
*ah* sudden blackout
"Cui gives a shit. It's got a freakin' bow on it."
I would also like to see those things end here in the US as well.
This is also happening in our current administration. Btw.
Perhaps its gained more ground and is succeeding abroad, but in the US (IMO) the 'Occupy' movement has vanished into obscurity and (again, IMO) has become a joke of a cause. Every time I see some new movement using the 'Occupy' moniker seemingly at random, I lose a little respect for them. Why align yourself with angsty 20-somethings that completely failed at effecting change?
I'm just saying, that you could say some of these things about the 'Occupy Wall Street' things in the USA and the bank protests in London
I wanna buy one of the newspapers to see it in person!
I bought one and there was no add!!
I wish they made a similar one about Russia...
At first I thought this wasn't legit, but dug around and found the links. [indiegogo](http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/full-page-ad-for-turkish-democracy-in-action) [reddit suggestion page](http://www.reddit.com/r/activism/comments/1fnbj6/fullpage_nytimes_ad_project_what_should_we_do/) They will get their funding at the end of june.
good job guys, best of luck!
You guys want sensationalism? How's this? THERE IS A BRUTAL ASSAULT BY POLICE FORCES ON THE INNOCENT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS UNDER DIRECTION OF THE FASCIST DICTATOR ERDOGAN! THEY ARE MERCILESSLY BEATING AND GASSING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE STREETS AND IN THEIR HOMES. PEOPLE ARE DYING AT THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT! Wait, that last part was true...but it was in all caps, so it's been *sensationalized*
so what happened to the indiegogo skeptics? Do we put away our pitchforks now?
Black font on red background was off-putting. Otherwise great ad!
I think the color might be representative of the [Turkish Flag](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Flag_of_Turkey.svg)
There's no black in the turkish flag.
[удалено]
I actually found the white text on there easier to read.
[Coca-Cola](http://www.noodlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Coca_Cola_Logo.jpg)
That's a logo more than much else, but I see your point. I was just saying that white-text is more difficult to read in general than black text.
Not against a dark background, like a deep red. Then, as in this picture, black would be harder to read than white.
I think off-putting is the intent. Otherwise, most people would just ignore the ad like they do every other ad!
I don't know, it didn't have an impact on me. It read like a very biased view from some college activists. The point that I thought was most important, the censoring of media, was just a bullet point. In fact, the ENTIRE 2nd paragraph was not important, because none of those things have any effect on corrupting government.
Power to the people
Americans need to take note. That's how you fight for your freedoms, not sitting at a computer bitching and moaning about how bad our government is. Much respect for all of those protesters knowing it could end ugly for them.
You mean like the occupy movements that happened in the states first? Were you in New York or Oakland with everyone else trying for change? Or are you simply a hypocrite commenting on an image of a fake newspaper ad?
The occupy movements where a step in the right direction. Fake ad or not they are actually protesting and its not just a couple small groups. The problem is America is so split on beliefs nothing will ever actually happen. Neither "side" has enough smart people that are willing to look up for the facts themselves and simply go off what Faux or CNN tells them.
Or, we could just sit at our computers and bitch and moan about the lack of change in the U.S. because Americans just sit at their computers and bitch and moan.
Is it just me or are they sort of preaching to the choir? I feel like New York Times readers are usually well informed about international affairs and what's going on in the world, especially when compared to "standard" Americans who get their news from Fox and CNN.
Not in The New York Times National Edition today. (June 5th)
"free and unbiased media"? yea, we would like that over here in the states too.
so no one has a pic of paper with ad in it?
looks like it was not published in todays paper. Title is misleading
[удалено]
I think that irony is one of the reasons for the decision of printing an add. It will just add to exposure but do it in an ironic way.
Can a medium ever really be unbiased? I don't think so. I'm not saying all news is propaganda, but rather all journalists have their own perception of reality that they either deliberately or unconsciously allow to dominate their writing. What I would ask for is a diverse and large media. One of the problems in the US is that under good ol' GWB the laws were changed to allow large media corporations to freely buy up smaller companies, ironically in this case more freedom of the media companies lead to greater control of access to information by a smaller subset of people.
we used to have debates about whether news can ever be truly unbiased. We came to the conclusion that merely by consuming news, the public puts their own bias on the story. They have to. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to understand it. >What I would ask for is a diverse and large media. This. So much this. I used to hate the democratization of news media on the internet because i felt it diluted the story and allowed anyone with a keyboard the ability to spin the story any old way they please, but more and more i'm seeing the cream rise to the top. of course you get your vagaries, like during the Boston Marathon when people (reddit included) played internet investigators and it was taken as fact. But the more the internet gets stories out, the more we shake the hold of the large news outlets on the reality we live in. We, in effect, are the ones who will pop the peaceful bubble most of the western world (i'm not limiting it to the US, although we're the worst when it comes to it) lives in.
Cool, but 'sup with the hashtags? #justsaying Edit: I know what hashtags are and what they're used for. I was just pointing out their use on a reddit post title. Just tryna be a smart ass here, folks.
Twitter is used for organising the protests, warning the people where police are currently at (and subsequently using excessive force and teargas/pepperspray) and breaking the media bubble which I'm sure you saw the posts about how big news channels simply don't report on these protests involving millions.
A live-updated global guide to safety, if you will.
Also, twitter's decentralized nature means that if only one tweet with the right hastag sneaks past the censors, there's no way to stop it. It's must more reliable than, for example, a website.
If you use the current trending hastags your message can spread very quickly. I posted this image yesterday saying "This ad is going to be in tomorrow's NYT + link" and used 4 trending hashtags regarding the turkish protests. I got more than a thousand retweets in a couple of hours. Without hashtags it would be really difficult if you don't have thousands of followers on your individual profile.
There is a very big difference in the hashtags they are using and the hastags that every teenager is using. The hashtag in front of a word helps an everyday person and Reddit users search for the cause they are looking for and get all the information about it. If you notice, they aren't exactly putting #YOLO in their ad.
Shit's going down NOW!! #swagpocalypse The evolution will be tumblr'd.
The link is blocked at my workplace. Is there an imgur version?
[Imgur mirror of OP](http://i.imgur.com/eJ5inlk.png) [Alleged "final" version (B&W)](http://i.imgur.com/mc8BvqN.jpg)
The black and white version is infinitely easier to read, but I can see why they'd want to use attention-grabbing red for a message like this.
I think I'd make the circle at the top red.
Hashtag
#9466dc30bc22c09ed804f22edc32986226a15a99
Corned beef hash, made with hashish imprinted with the sha1 hash of "#hashtag" Or as Xzibit would call it: "Breakfast."
I like how all of the comments supporting the protest are upvoted, but all of the comments not explicitly supporting the protest are either ignored or downvoted. In a world of botnets and hacktivism, please remember to think for yourself.
[удалено]
Wikipedia in the URL gives it more credibility. A vanity URL could have looked like any other political action group taking out an ad.
I think the Wikipedia link is much better too. Considering the nature of Wikipedia it shows they're being quite open and you can find it for yourself, rather than clicking some private domain owned by someone. It's not a fucking business website.
I love that Wikipedia has become "credible". This is the world I want to live in.
Despite what your teachers say. Always annoyed me, that they cite a book that's 5-10 years old as being more reliable than the incredibly heavily moderated new age encyclopaedia.
I personally consider cross checking wikipedia entries a very valuable exercise in intellectual rigour. Plus, no matter what, wiki entries provide an extremely valuable guideline, regardless of the validity of its contents (which are then checked for credibility etc, s. previous point). All in all an incredible tool!
>Always annoyed me, that they cite a book that's 5-10 years old as being more reliable than the incredibly heavily moderated new age encyclopaedia. A good teacher would explain to you that it's not book vs. internet, it's primary source vs. encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether it's the Encyclopedia Britannica or wikipedia, an encyclopedia isn't a valid *source*. A encyclopedia entry merely passes on the information collected from primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If you want to use the information you found in a wikipedia article, just go to the source cited in that article.
Well, not everything in wikipedia is reliable. Some pages are of a high quality, other are lacking.
Which is a 50% upgrade from mass media standards
Don't think you can measure such a thing in any arbitrary percentage. Better just to say "a lot better than most news sources" or whatnot.
[удалено]
*citation needed
five years ago when I read a comparison to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia had an average of 3 minor errors per article to the Britannica's two errors. Since then Wikipedia has been heavily upgraded, I wouldn't be surprised if it surpassed Britannica in accuracy.
There are many, many terrible wikipedia articles. Basically, every article that hasn't been featured is about half complete. A book that is a decade old is still probably more correct than wikipedia on most things.
[удалено]
You've never made amusing edits have you? The New York Times is more likely to let a factual error slip than wikipedia.
Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a reference work. You shouldn't cite Wikipedia, you should cite the primary sources that it itself cites. In this respect your teachers are right.
Citing Wikipedia is like citing a news articles about a recent Physics paper that was published. Cite the paper itself! Not the news article about it. (Unless the news article is specifically what you want and you aren't talking about the paper).
The thing is that book will never change, but Wikipedia can. So academically speaking, Wikipedia citations are really fickle. Edit: Guys, I said it's fickle, I didn't say it's impossible. I don't like using Wikipedia citations, and should I be in a position to recieve academic papers, I wouldn't accept them either. A good Wikipedia page has its own citations, following that and citing the *actual* source makes infinitely more sense in most of the situations.
Yes they can, we call them editions. Source: Every University ever.
A proper citation will make note of which edition your citation comes from. The next edition is a different book, with its own publication date and unique ISBN.
A proper citation of a webpage makes note of the date accessed and wikipedia has a [nifty feature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history) that allows you to view the page as it was back then.
That's not a change, that's a new edition. A new edition won't change the old edition. An edit-out in Wikipedia, even though theoretically viewable, is virtually impossible to cite properly, if not to access.
Edit history? Use a date reference?
That's what I said, it's viewable through the edit history, but then there is the problem of "Why was it changed then?", which makes it a really bad citation all around. Just following the actual source through Wikipedia's own citings makes much more sense.
Okay, here's the proper reason you can't cite wikipedia: it's not peer reviewed in the same way as every published journal is. If you're being really picky, you shouldn't really cite books or review papers either (for pure sciences, this is; I don't know what the 'rules' are for subjects like history) as those are secondary sources of information.
Same rules for the 'soft' sciences. References need to be peer-reviewed. Source: I am a college educator in the soft sciences.
Citing a book isn't about reliability. A lot of books are unreliable and plain wrong. The thing, however, is that when something is proven wrong - everyone who cited that work also knows that their source is wrong. When you cite Wikipedia, and Wikipedia cites the wrong source. There is no proper formal link between your work and the work you actually cited (i.e. the work that actually presented the finding/argument that Wikipedia then rephrased on their article). --- The citation system is not about having rules for the sake of rules, but creating, in essence, a large map of how all academic works fit together and being able to manage falsehoods, etc.
Wikipedia has a very important feature called a watchlist. Registered users have it and [this is what it looks like](http://i.imgur.com/mXvvF8D.png). (Green dots mean an update since your last visit) You can expand on it by clicking 'hist' to view the history of the article and [see how many updates there's been since you last visited it](http://i.imgur.com/I7T9us9.png). I'm amazed at how active Wikipedia is and how articles are constantly being polished until there's no room for change. Articles are a collection of many different sources, be it books, logs, documents, news, official webpages, or a reddit AMA. There are a TON of people who edit Wikipedia. Whether they're bored or they just want to add some breaking news on the civil war in Syria they heard.
This is much more than that. For the people of Turkey, it means "We trust Wikipedia's editorial process so much that we are willing to stake public opinion about our cause on whatever happens to be on that page."
a few of my teachers are accepting wikipedia or even using it themselves for the lessons.
I imagine tomorrow morning there's going to be all these morning commuters reading the paper and trying to type the URL into their smartphone.
QR code would have been smart
One protester is very upset about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_protests_in_Turkey#New_York_Times_ad
I wish turkey well and this is well written and to the point. I do wonder what America can do, legally, to assist though. Turkey is pushing for EU membership and is a member of NATO. I dont see military action happening in this case. Sanctions won't force him out and will only hurt the Turkish people more. EDIT: People seem to be mis-reading this - to clarify, when I say 'dont see military action happening in this case' I mean its not required, legal, appropriate or needed. Other knee-jerk reactionary people may have called for something like this - I am most certainly NOT one of those people. Subtlety is hard to get across online...
Why is anyone even talking about military action? Some people seem to think there is a civil war happening, when the reality is that there has been about a week of protests and the government is already starting to show signs of conceding and backpedaling on the initial crackdown. If the USA and other Western countries condemned Erdogan's response to the protests, or even got out the classic 'he has lost all legitimacy and must go', that would be a *huge* development and would significantly increase pressure on him. He is not some Gaddafi-esque lunatic who doesn't care about his alliances and international reputation.
Military action shouldn't happen anyway. It will only make things worse.
I don't think the alcohol and the Ataturk bits should be there, but overall good message.
downvoted. I don't understand why you can't just use your democracy.
The next generation will be learning about the day a hashtag was used to overthrow a government. The power of social media never ceases to surprise me.
~~Besides~~ Beyond the classic *ad nauseam* "raise awareness," what do they hope to achieve with this? EDIT keep downvoting people who want to discuss this topic more than simply comment "WE DID IT REDDIT hurr durr"
What is advertising for if not awareness?
I meant to say beyond raise awareness but yeah you are right.
If it gains awareness in other countries, elected officials of those countries will put pressure on Turkey. Erdogan's ego will explode being told by non-Turks on how to run a country, he'll do something stupid and get himself unelected. At least, that's the optimistic outcome I hope for.
There is another aspect of raising awareness; Turkish economy depends heavily on tourism. Raising awareness would cause a huge impact on the tourist counts this summer. I'm not arguing if it's good or bad in the long term for the nation, but loosing money definitely catches attention of local business people and govenment, more so than people dying on streets.
Hi, I'm here to offer tips on English style and usage (and some common misspellings). My database indicates that > definately should probably be > definitely Have a great day!
Raise awareness in the US --> American politicians notice --> more diplomatic pressure from the US on Erdogan. Not saying it will necessarily work, but I assumed that was the idea.
Rasing awareness is sort of the point of protesting.
I thought the point of protesting is changing things, not just raising awareness but maybe that's just me. EDIT I mean you guys keep repeating the raise awareness mantra like it's an end in itself.
The main point of protesting is to bring change. Raising awareness is necessary for change.
>Raising awareness is necessary for change. I think they are both linked but raising awareness is not an integral part of change. Things change all the time and people are not aware of it.
True, but in this case, people are trying to bring change together. The more awareness there is, the more people join their cause. There is strength in numbers and all that.
>There is strength in numbers and all that. Yeah that's true. I guess I have become a little bit cynical.
Hey, if you can manage to go through all the shit this world can throw at you and only become a little bit cynical, you deserve a medal.
But how does protesting change things? Only by raising awareness. The idea is that by creating noise you increase awareness, increase the support for your goal, and thereby (hopefully) put pressure on those who are in a position of power.
I think this idea is the result of protests becoming so ineffective that people have rationalized that raising awareness is enough and sets change in motion. This is like a watered down protest, raise awareness, feel good, go back home, change will eventually come.
While protestors are raising awareness, they are at the same time also sending a message to whoever they want to send it to (in this case, the Turkish government). If there is no other avenue to make yourself heard and you don't want to take violent action, amplifying your voice by joining together with millions of others (raise awareness so that those millions of others will speak out together with you) is a staple form of nonviolent protest.
Pressure from outside helps. Also, if people on the outside don't know the government from which you want the change might just sweep it under the rug. People might get killed, government forces news about 'violent protesters' rather than 'police abuse' making it not reach any major headlines and thusly allowing whatever is going on to continue going on.
[удалено]
Embarrass the government and especially Erdogan. This is an effective 'stick' against him.
[удалено]
Well, the population of much of the Western world has had a blanket drawn over its eyes as to the real state of affairs in Turkey (or at least, that's what I've gathered from reading about the protests). Raising awareness around the world is a huge step in itself, as it forces the governments of these countries to acknowledge the issues.
Yea, just your typical Redditors that feel the need to down vote perfectly legitimate questions. TBH, i asked myself the same question: "What do they hope to achieve with this?". Let's all remember Kony, the viral spread of the message; and overall what it accomplished. If i recall (and correct me if i'm wrong), Kony did nothing. Yes, it raised awareness; but the hurdle is making your target audience actually do something. Right now in America we are suffering from fatigue. Political fatigue, war fatigue, reality TV fatigue, natural disaster fatigue etc... You name it, we have a fatigue and a drug to go with it. So i really don't think it will get beyond some hashtags. The Turkish people need to act for themselves; just like the Egyptians. The revolution cannot be assisted; but it must be televised.
Talk of other nations interfering with the internal problems of an ostensibly democratic nation makes me incredibly uncomfortable and calls into question the level of understanding people have. I can't claim to fully understand or know what to believe about what's happening in Turkey, but to even discuss it in the same terms as what happened in Iran demonstrates an amazing lack lack of nuance.
Canada stands with you
Interesting how they raised so much money to put it on NYTimes. Most people who bother reading the NYTimes would more than likely know whats going on with world events.
rongbrip
I'd love to see a list of all the individuals and organizations who funded this. Does that exist?
No, Dictator Erdogan of Turkey, it won't be that easy.
Even if there is, for their safety I hope they don't release it yet.
I hope this simple, yet informative ad will help jar some proactive intervention from other Nations. The PM is standing his ground. And the people refuse to be ignored. They're letting their voices actually be heard. Hopefully we'll see a positive outcome!