There's a popular verb in headlines about climate researcher Peter Gleick's admission that he used trickery to get damning documents out of the climate change-denialist group the Heartland Institute: "Activist Says He Lied to Obtain Climate Papers" (New York Times, 2/21/12); "Scientist Peter Gleick Admits He Lied to Get Climate Documents" (L.A. Times, 2/21/12); "Climate Researcher Says He Lied to Obtain Heartland Documents" (WashingtonPost.com, 2/21/12).

What you wouldn't gather from all these pants-on-fire condemnations is that there is a long and honorable tradition, from Nellie Bly feigning madness to expose mistreatment of the mentally ill to the Chicago Sun-Times' Mirage Tavern corruption lab, of investigative journalists using false identities to gather information--when the public interest is clear, and there's no other way to get the story. While it's not possible to give Gleick ethical absolution without knowing more details of what he did, it's clear that Heartland was not about to give up incriminating documents to anyone they thought would make them public--and there is hardly a story where the public interest is more obvious than in documenting efforts to block action to stop catastrophic global climate change.

However, as Aaron Swartz pointed out in Extra! (3-4/08), in recent years corporate media have largely abandoned the tactic of undercover reporting, largely in response to the Food Lion case, in which ABC was sued (ultimately unsuccessfully) for having its reporters get grocery store jobs without revealing that they planned use their positions to gather evidence of unsafe food handling. Bizarrely, many journalistic observers seemed to find Food Lion's position persuasive--an ethical stance that is great for corporate malefactors but terrible for the public interest, since it would virtually insure that reporters can never be eyewitness to workplace abuses that happen in employees-only areas.

Thus when Ken Silverstein (Harper's, 7/07) pretended to represent a Central Asian dictatorship to document lobbying groups' eagerness to work for human rights abusers, he got a chorus of scoldings from ethical arbiters like Howard Kurtz (Washington Post, 6/25/07): "No matter how good the story, lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects." In this peculiar moral universe, pretending to work for a ruthless dictatorship is every bit as ethically questionable as actually volunteering to do so.

And that's the standard that's being applied to Gleick (Climate Central, 2/21/12): The New York Times' Andy Revkin (Dot Earth, 2/20/12) charged that "Gleick's use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others." Wrote Bryan Walsh for Time.com (2/20/12): "No reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It's almost certainly a firing offense." According to Houston Chronicle science editor Eric Berger (2/21/12), Gleick "has unquestionably ceded some of the high ground scientists held in the climate science debate. It will not be easily won back."

Funny, you'd think that climate scientists held the high ground in the climate science debate because of, you know, science--the science that shows that we're making catastrophic changes to the Earth's atmosphere?

Holding that Gleick's sins are much worse than Heartland's--I predict you will see virtually nothing from now on in establishment outlets about the contents of the Heartland memos--is a bizarre moral proposition, equivalent to holding that a child should starve to death rather than a loaf of bread be stolen. (Do bear in mind a fact that seems entirely absent from the media discussion of global warming, which is that large numbers of people, many of them children, are already dying as a result of lack of action on climate change.) But the most maddening thing is that these same media outlets are entirely willing to accept misrepresentation and illegally gathered information as legitimate parts of journalism--when they are used to advance a right-wing agenda, including climate change denial.

As Exhibit A, look at James O'Keefe, who famously and proudly passed off his partner as a prostitute while secretly videotaping ACORN staffers. Who in the debate over O'Keefe's work took the position that because the colleague was not actually a prostitute, the entire project was unethical and therefore all of his videotapes should be ignored? The actual objection to O'Keefe's work (Extra!, 4/10) was that he deceived the public--misleadingly editing his footage to create false impressions, including the popular delusion that O'Keefe had gone into ACORN offices wearing an outlandish Superfly costume. Nevertheless, he got overwhelmingly positive coverage from right-wing and centrist news outlets alike, with the result that his mendacious reporting had the successful result of helping to bring ACORN down.

And on the issue of climate change itself, corporate news outlets devoted endless attention to the "Climategate" story (Extra!, 2/10), the selective release of scientists' private emails, evidently obtained through hacking. This release was designed to create the appearance of scientific impropriety where none existed, as every inquiry into the controversy has determined (FAIR Blog, 4/19/10). In a journalistic failure that will likely surpass the selling of the Iraq invasion and the overlooking of the housing bubble in terms of human devastation, media allowed this malicious hoax to upend the climate change discussion (FAIR Blog, 2/2/10), turning the scientific consensus on global warming once again into an open question and effectively taking real action to reduce greenhouse gasses off the political table.

Climate Central's round-up of reactions to the Heartland/Gleick story cites Forbes.com's Warren Meyer (2/21/12)--identified not as a prominent global warming denier (he's got a video called Catastrophe Denied, for Pete's sake), but merely as one of "several commentators" making the point that people on both sides in the "climate debate" have caused it to become "unethical and dangerous." Meyer is quoted, seemingly approvingly: "When we convince ourselves that those who disagree with us are not people of goodwill who simply reach different conclusions from the data, but are instead driven by evil intentions and nefarious sources of funding, then it becomes easier to convince oneself that the ends justify the means."

Here's what the Heartland documents actually show (Deep Climate, 2/14/12): The leadership of those who reject climate science are not people of goodwill who simply reach different conclusions from the data, but instead are driven by nefarious sources of funding. If you want to call that "evil," when you're talking about working to prevent action to avoid worldwide disaster, I think you're on solid moral ground.

Edit: Placed Eric Berger at the right paper.

USA Today has a long piece (3/17/11) by Martha Moore about video hoax artist James O'Keefe's NPR project. The article does a pretty good job of running down the deceptions in O'Keefe's video. That's good. This, however, is not:

The video follows a long, if not always honorable, tradition of muckraking exposés. It also is a stepchild to the political tactic of tracking an opponent with video until a gaffe occurs, then capitalizing on it. The sting's impact was magnified by the quick dissemination-without-scrutiny that is a hallmark of Internet-driven media.

O'Keefe's video has nothing to do with muckraking. And please don't blame the Internet for the fact that journalists apparently can't be bothered to care whether a source is reliable.

That's annoying. But this part is at least somewhat amusing:

O'Keefe's tactics combine "the guerrilla of Borat, the gotcha of Dateline…and the gonzo approach of Hunter S. Thompson," O'Keefe said in an interview.

I hope if I'm ever profiled by USA Today, I'll get to sing my own praises like that.

From Wednesday's NBC Nightly News (3/9/11), courtesy of reporter Lisa Myers:

We last saw O'Keefe wearing a fur coat and playing a pimp when he managed to take down the liberal group ACORN.

No we didn't.

As should be well-known by now, O'Keefe used footage of himself wearing a "pimp" costume in his ACORN videos--but didn't wear the ridiculous costume during his "undercover stings." Media accounts acted as though he did, though--it took a lot of effort to get the New York Times to finally admit its errors on this count.

If reporters don't know these facts, they're bound to get fooled by O'Keefe again.

After his fraudulent ACORN videos, the lesson media should have learned about right-wing "citizen journalist" James O'Keefe is not to trust him. But they didn't, so here we are with his NPR stunt, which allegedly shows NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller saying mean things about the Tea Party in a meeting with phony Muslim Brotherhood-connected donors.

But it appears that, once again, O'Keefe's videos are not be what they seem. The first serious questions about them were raised on (I swear!) The Blaze, a Glenn Beck-affiliated website. Over there, Scott Baker pointed to a few problems (3/10/11). In one part of the video, NPR's Schiller seems to laugh about the phony Muslim group's position on Sharia law. Baker says it's out of context:

So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the "acceptance of Sharia," the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, "Really? That’s what they said?" The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on.  The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video, you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.

But more important than that is the part of the video regarding Schiller's comments about the Tea Party--the words that generated much of the current controversy. According to Baker, elsewhere in the video Schiller talks fondly of his own Republican roots. As for the racist, xenophobic Tea Party stuff:

the clip in the edited video implies Schiller is giving simply his own analysis of the Tea Party. He does do that in part, but the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama.

NPR has done at least two reports on the video (one here, the other here). It's not quite a Shirley Sherrod moment--where the right-wing video was edited to totally turn her message around--but it's clear that things aren't exactly what they first seemed. O'Keefe's history should give media outlets serious reservations about taking him at face value on anything.

On CNN's Reliable Sources (3/13/11) O'Keefe was asked what he thought of the media's coverage of the story:

HOWARD KURTZ: Do you think the media coverage has been fair to you and your organization in this NPR story?

O'KEEFE: I think it's been more fair. I think the mainstream media is certainly starting to have a little more respect for us.

He's right--which goes to show you that the argument that the media is tilted to the left remains totally unconvincing.

*NOTE: A small correction: The Blaze writer's name is Scott Baker-- not Scott Walker, who is someone else entirely.

He's back.

Right-wing activist James O'Keefe's latest "work" is an undercover video that shows representatives from a fake Muslim charity trying to make a $5 million donation to NPR. The "Muslim" donors-to-be meet with two NPR development officers. In the ensuing conversation, as all the media coverage explains, one of the two--Ron Schiller--expresses critical views of Republicans and the far-right Tea Party.

Schiller is an NPR fundraiser, with no journalistic role there. While it wasn't wise to share his personal views at a lunch, it is the sort of thing that people do all the time. So why does anyone care about this? Because O'Keefe--and countless other right-wing critics--want to show that NPR is a bastion of left-wing propaganda. They can't do that by studying the content of NPR's broadcasts, but they can get a fundraiser to make disparaging comments about Tea Party conservatism- and, in so doing, force out NPR CEO Vivian Schiller.

The political motivation behind the hidden camera sting is clear enough--to spark more discussion about NPR's supposed bias, at a time when Republican politicians are looking to eliminate funding for public media.  As an L.A. Times editorial put it (3/11/11):

National Public Radio long has attracted complaints from conservatives that it has a liberal tilt. By seeming to confirm that view, a senior NPR fundraising official has provided the network's critics with undreamed-of ammunition. More than ever, NPR needs to remember its obligation as a recipient of government funds to be balanced and nonpartisan.

This is exactly what O'Keefe and those like him want. But anyone writing about what the video "seems to confirm" should hold themselves to a higher standard. Do the conservative criticisms of NPR's "liberal tilt" have any evidence to back them up?

FAIR's 2004 study of NPR, which looked at 2,334 quoted sources in 804 stories on four leading programs, provides one such examination (Extra!, 5-6/04)--and found nothing like that:

Elite sources dominated NPR's guestlist. These sources--including government officials, professional experts and corporate representatives--accounted for 64 percent of all sources.

Current and former government officials constituted the largest group of elite voices, accounting for 28 percent of overall sources, an increase of 2 percentage points over 1993. Current and former military sources (a subset of governmental sources) were 3 percent of total sources.

Professional experts--including those from academia, journalism, think tanks, legal, medical and other professions--were the second largest elite group, accounting for 26 percent of all sources. Corporate representatives accounted for 6 percent of total sources.

And on partisanship:

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources--including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants--Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

If NPR's main news shows have a bias, it is toward the elite.

The hidden camera video dwells on NPR's coverage of Israel/Palestine, with the "Muslim" donors cheering "National Palestine Radio" for being critical of Israel. This is a common argument heard from conservatives. So what's the evidence? Seth Ackerman looked at coverage of deaths on either side of the conflict (Extra!, 11-12/01):

During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.

There are plenty of other examples that demonstrate NPR is not a left-wing outlet: Undercounting anti-war protests, a softball interview with Dick Cheney, distorted framing of the Mideast as being "calm" when only Palestinians are dying, a correspondent urging Israeli "retaliation" against Palestinians, hosting a "liberal media" discussion between conservatives Bernard Goldberg and William McGowan and two mainstream reporters, hosting healthcare "debates" between two former politicians who were both working for the health insurance industry, and allowing far-right bomb thrower David Horowitz to malign progressive historian Howard Zinn in an obituary piece. Just to name a few.

What about NPR's response to the controversy? Bill Moyers and Michael Winship write:

We agree with Joel Meares who, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, expressed the wish that NPR had stood up for themselves and released a statement close to the following:

"Ron Schiller was a fundraiser who no longer works for us. He had nothing to do with our editorial decision making process. And, frankly, our editorial integrity speaks for itself. We've got reporters stationed all over the world, we've won all sorts of prizes, we've got an ombudsman who is committed to examining our editorial operations. If you think our reporting is tainted, or unreliable, that's your opinion, and you're free to express it. And to look for the evidence. But we will not be intimidated by the elaborate undercover hackwork of vindictive political point-scorers who are determined to see NPR fail."

That's our cue. Come on, people: Speak up!

Some of NPR's most prominent reporters and hosts did speak out--and they sent a very different message. In "An Open Letter from Journalists at NPR News," they wrote:

we were appalled by the offensive comments made recently by NPR's now former senior vice president for development. His words violated the basic principles by which we live and work: accuracy and open-mindedness, fairness and respect.

The letter adds, "Those comments have done real damage to NPR."

That is beyond doubt. But the damage is made much worse by a media that treats O'Keefe's "scoop" as if it reveals anything important.

O'Keefe's big "get" is that a fundraiser will tell a prospective donor some of what he thinks he might want to hear. The fact that mainstream media have devoted so much attention to O'Keefe's sting is proof that the corporate media aren't that liberal at all.

In late 2009 and early 2010, right-wing activist James O'Keefe concocted a story that got widespread media coverage. The tall tale went like this: O'Keefe and his associate went to offices affiliated with the community organizing group ACORN in order to solicit advice on running a brothel and evading taxes. The problem was that nothing much like that actually happened. As FAIR summarized  (Action Alert, 3/11/10):

O'Keefe never dressed as a pimp during his visits to ACORN offices, seems to never actually represent himself as a "pimp," and the advice he solicits is usually about how to file income taxes (which is not "tax evasion"). In at least one encounter (at a Baltimore ACORN office), the pair seemed to first insist that Giles was a dancer, not a prostitute.

The upshot: O'Keefe misrepresented his exploits, released selectively edited videos, and the press fell for it. In fact, the ombud at the Washington Post and the public editor at the New York Times chided their respective papers for not giving the bogus "scandal" more attention. (Eventually, the Times would admit some of its ACORN errors, thanks to FAIR activists and blogger Brad Friedman.)

So it felt a little odd to see this headline in the New York Times today (2/2/11):

Group Releases Hidden Tapes of Planned Parenthood

The lead:

An anti-abortion group seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood released an undercover video on Tuesday that appears to show a clinic manager advising a sex trafficker how to get medical care for prostitutes as young as 14.

So this raises the question: Will these outlets learn to treat right-wing hidden camera exploits more skeptically--or maybe decide that they're not news at all? This Times account suggests that they have already forgotten what they learned last time:

The video resembles those made in 2009 by a conservative activist, James O'Keefe, in which employees of the community group Acorn appeared to advise a prostitution ring how to avoid taxes.

At the Washington Post, under the headline "Anti-Abortion Group Releases Planned Parenthood Sting Video," readers are told:

A group seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood released a video Tuesday that depicts two hired actors posing as a pimp and a prostitute seeking services at a New Jersey clinic, in an operation resembling one that helped take down a liberal anti-poverty group two years ago.

If by "resembles," the Post means  that this current video is getting more attention than it deserves, then, yes, there is a distinct similarity. A more reasonable write-up of the current "sting" came courtesy of Alex Pareene at Salon.com (2/1/11), who wrote that the plan

didn't really work, because Planned Parenthood quickly caught on and alerted the FBI. (BigJournalism.com exclusive: Planned Parenthood alerts the authorities when confronted by self-proclaimed human traffickers!) Planned Parenthood suspected that the hoaxer had ties to Live Action, an antiabortion activist group run by Lila Rose, a sometime O'Keefe partner-in-undercover-stinging. And Live Action confirmed its involvement by posting the sad results of its exhaustive video investigation today. It caught one staffer possibly advising a make-believe pimp to send a make-believe underage prostitute somewhere where her abortion would not be reported. (It is obviously impossible to tell what actually happened without the unedited video.) (And also this Planned Parenthood alerted the authorities about the weird visit.)

Pareene points out:

These conservative undercover "hoaxes" are best understood as an attempt to make their fantasies real. In order to make animate the world that they feverishly imagine, they must themselves become the unsavory characters with bad motivations that they enjoy thinking populate these hotbeds of degenerate liberal activity.

The corporate media problem here is quite serious, since there is a deep-seated feeling that what right-wing activists do should get more coverage, to make up for the nonexistent liberal bias in the mainstream media. This sensibility creates the media "appetite" for the ACORN hoax, the Shirley Sherrod hoax, and on and on.

At this point, it's not a question of media "falling" for this stuff, but being eager to act as a megaphone for these right-wing fantasies.

You may remember James O'Keefe as the video hoaxter who fooled media into thinking ACORN gave tax advice to a man wearing a pimp costume (FAIR Action Alert, 3/11/10). Or as the miscreant whose attempts to interfere with Sen. Mary Landrieu's office phones got him arrested (Extra!, 4/10).

Now O'Keefe has a new claim to fame as the guy who tried to turn sexual harassment into reality TV.

CNN is reporting today (9/29/10) that one of its reporters, Abbie Boudreau, was the target of a bizarre, misogynistic scheme by O'Keefe's video production team--"Project Veritas"--to lure her on to a boat where she would be videotaped as O'Keefe attempted to seduce her amidst sexual paraphernalia. Boudreau was alerted to the plan at the last minute by one of O'Keefe's colleagues who recognized that "the idea is incredibly bad" with "the potential for unnecessary backlash."

The whistleblower, Izzy Santa, described the harassment plan in a note to one of Veritas' backers:

Today, James is meeting with a CNN correspondent today on his boat. She is doing a piece on the movement of young conservative filmmakers.

She doesn't know she is getting on a boat but rather James' office. James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her. He wants to gag CNN.

According to a written plan, the "equipment needed" for the stunt included "hidden cams on the boat," a "tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine," as well as a "condom jar, dildos, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs" and a blindfold.

The blueprint included a script for O'Keefe to read, apparently written by O'Keefe associate Ben Wetmore:

My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: They want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

Please sit back and enjoy the show.

The document, labeled "CNN Caper," tried to anticipate how the cable network would respond and planned a counterreaction:

If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag.... If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively....

If they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN.

Trying to figure out what to do if O'Keefe came out of this looking like a creep was perhaps the one good idea that went into the planning of this operation.

Media Matters' Jamison Foser (9/29/10) pointed out that when O'Keefe was running his ACORN hoax, the ombuds for both the New York Times and Washington Post wrote columns complaining that their papers weren't taking him seriously enough. Maybe there ought to be some soul-searching at these outlets over why they gave him as much credence as they did.

Follow Jim Naureckas on Twitter @JNaureckas.

ABC's Good Morning America got an "exclusive" with ACORN video hoaxters James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart on June 1.

Here's how host George Stephanopoulos set up the segment:

James O'Keefe became a media sensation after he and a friend posed as a pimp and prostitute and secretly recoded ACORN workers giving them advice on how to cheat on their taxes.

As FAIR noted in an action alert to the New York Times, O'Keefe didn't "pose" as a pimp--he didn't wear his absurd "pimp" get-up when he went in to ACORN offices, and in almost every case he presented himself as a concerned boyfriend trying to get his girlfriend away from an abusive pimp. And he didn't get any advice on how to "cheat" on his taxes. (Brad Friedman did the most thorough debunkings of these videos, and was on the case after the ABC interview).

What O'Keefe claimed happened during his visits to ACORN was not what actually happened--for instance, he videotaped himself wearing his garish "pimp" costume outside of ACORN offices in order to feed those misimpressions. But he never wore the get-up inside the ACORN facilities he targeted.

Stephanopoulos later alluded to "critics" who argue that O'Keefe "revised reality for political gain." The ABC host, on the other hand, said: "I have to give you credit for this, on ACORN, you did expose people doing things they shouldn't do."

Stephanopoulos was interrupted by Breitbart:  "Is it legal to help set up a prostitution ring in every single office?"

That is also false.

But instead of challenging these inaccuracies, Stephanopoulos defended his own record: "I was one of the few, if not the only journalist, who actually asked President Obama about the ACORN case, so I hold no brief."

Letters from FAIR and others eventually convinced the New York Times that treating O'Keefe and Breitbart as if they were actual journalists whose work could be trusted was a mistake. The paper issued a half-hearted correction, but the paper's subsequent ACORN reporting was very different. Here's how they put it on May 27: "In at least one video, ACORN workers advised a conservative activist who was posing as a prostitute how to conceal her criminal activities in the course of trying to buy a house."

The Times had previously written about the case in much more inflammatory--and inaccurate--language: "Their travels in the gaudy guise of pimp and prostitute through various offices of ACORN, the national community organizing group, caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution."

It took a long time for the Times to admit even some of its errors. Public editor Clark Hoyt explained that part of the problem was that when O'Keefe appeared on television wearing a pimp costume to promote his videos, the Fox News hosts interviewing him said that he had worn the same outfit to ACORN offices--a claim O'Keefe did not correct. In other words, O'Keefe's work should be fact-checked by O'Keefe.

O'Keefe's ACORN hoax lives on only because journalists like Stephanopoulos fail to challenge him.

See Extra!: "Falling for the ACORN Hoax: The Strange Journalism of James O'Keefe" (4/10) by Veronica Cassidy.

An interesting catch from Think Progress (1/26/10)--from an interview conducted last year by Fox News' Chris Wallace (9/27/09) with pretend pimp James O'Keefe:

WALLACE: O'Keefe says he wants to do more undercover films, and he has some targets in mind. He says his friends always tell him the next sting will never work.

O'KEEFE: I disagree with them. I think that I'll come up with a new strategy and I'll get them to say yes.

This was, of course, before O'Keefe and three of his friends were arrested while apparently trying to wiretap the phones of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Update: O'Keefe denies that he was trying to wiretap Landrieu's phone. He and his companions were not charged under the wiretapping statute, but with "maliciously interfering with a telephone system operated and controlled by the U.S. government" (CBSNews.com, 1/29/10).