NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something that ought to bug people of every political stripe. It's unclear exactly who has given the order, but National Guard units are keeping reporters out of the area. Earlier, FEMA rejected requests from journalists (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06101601.htm) to accompany rescue boats and has requested that the media not make any photos of the deceased. Fortunately, the media has ignored this to some extent, and I say fortunately not because I get any great thrill from seeing dead bodies, but because it's necessary to document the effects of this storm.

But the piece I'm mainly bringing to you is this report from Brian Williams of NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8045532/#050907c) who's in New Orleans:
An interesting dynamic is taking shape in this city, not altogether positive: after days of rampant lawlessness (making for what I think most would agree was an impossible job for the New Orleans Police Department during those first few crucial days of rising water, pitch-black nights and looting of stores) the city has now reached a near-saturation level of military and law enforcement. In the areas we visited, the red berets of the 82nd Airborne are visible on just about every block. National Guard soldiers are ubiquitous. At one fire scene, I counted law enforcement personnel (who I presume were on hand to guarantee the safety of the firefighters) from four separate jurisdictions, as far away as Connecticut and Illinois. And tempers are getting hot. While we were attempting to take pictures of the National Guard (a unit from Oklahoma) taking up positions outside a Brooks Brothers on the edge of the Quarter, the sergeant ordered us to the other side of the boulevard. The short version is: there won't be any pictures of this particular group of guard soldiers on our newscast tonight. Rules (or I suspect in this case an order on a whim) like those do not HELP the palpable feeling that this area is somehow separate from the United States.

At that same fire scene, a police officer from out of town raised the muzzle of her weapon and aimed it at members of the media... obvious members of the media... armed only with notepads. Her actions (apparently because she thought reporters were encroaching on the scene) were over the top and she was told. There are automatic weapons and shotguns everywhere you look. It's a stance that perhaps would have been appropriate during the open lawlessness that has long since ended on most of these streets. Someone else points out on television as I post this: the fact that the National Guard now bars entry (by journalists) to the very places where people last week were barred from LEAVING (The Convention Center and Superdome) is a kind of perverse and perfectly backward postscript to this awful chapter in American history.

Now, laying blame aside, there's no call for this kind of treatment of the press. This is the story of the year, easily--this is the kind of storm that comes along, hopefully, only once in a lifetime. This needs to be documented by someone other than a government that just might have reason to cover up some mistakes--and I mean government on every level here, state, local and federal. All you have to do to see what happens when there's even the hint of secrecy is look at conspiracy theory websites, and if the government keeps reporters out, hoping to make themselves not look quite so bad, we'll be getting the mother of all conspiracies here.

This is something that ought to bug people of every political stripe. It's unclear exactly who has given the order, but National Guard units are keeping reporters out of the area. Earlier, FEMA rejected requests from journalists (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06101601.htm) to accompany rescue boats and has requested that the media not make any photos of the deceased. Fortunately, the media has ignored this to some extent, and I say fortunately not because I get any great thrill from seeing dead bodies, but because it's necessary to document the effects of this storm.

But the piece I'm mainly bringing to you is this report from Brian Williams of NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8045532/#050907c) who's in New Orleans:


Now, laying blame aside, there's no call for this kind of treatment of the press. This is the story of the year, easily--this is the kind of storm that comes along, hopefully, only once in a lifetime. This needs to be documented by someone other than a government that just might have reason to cover up some mistakes--and I mean government on every level here, state, local and federal. All you have to do to see what happens when there's even the hint of secrecy is look at conspiracy theory websites, and if the government keeps reporters out, hoping to make themselves not look quite so bad, we'll be getting the mother of all conspiracies here.Keeping people out of a area where occupants will be forced to leave for their safety, where you have fouled water (with more than just feces) dead bodies, barely contained fires and possible gas/fuel explosions... especally when it's really unclear if there are any armed nutcases still around and you have reports of people pretending to be the Press just to enter the city...

nope, no cause to keep people out... none at all. :rolleyes:

If reporters are willing to take their chances, then why shouldn't the government let them? Reporters spend time in far more unstable places than this every day. Is it really worth the trouble the government will bring upon itself to keep them out?

Keeping people out of a area where occupants will be forced to leave for their safety, where you have fouled water (with more than just feces) dead bodies, barely contained fires and possible gas/fuel explosions... especally when it's really unclear if there are any armed nutcases still around and you have reports of people pretending to be the Press just to enter the city...

nope, no cause to keep people out... none at all. :rolleyes:

Keeping people out of an area where occupants will be forced to leave for their safety (just started pushing back the press today), where you have fouled water((with more than just feces))(been like that since last Tuesday), dead bodies (again, since last Tuesday), barely contained fires and possible gas/fuel explosions (also since last Tuesday)... especially when it's really unclear if there are any armed nutcases still around (again, since last Tuesday) and you have reports of people pretending to be the Press just to enter the city...(that's gonna keep happening, reguardless)

As I see it, the press does have the right, nay, the responsibility to be there. Since before the hurricane hit, the press has been there. Before the majority of armed forces and rescue operations arrived, the press has been there. When everything started blowing up, the press was there. When looting was occuring, the press was there. now, quite suddely, someone doesn't want the press to be there... and you're not even remotely curious why???? That sends my 'Oh Shit' meter into overdrive.

Had they stated it more to the effect of 'due to national security, we're not allowed in' that'd be one thing. But to simply say 'no' without any reasonable explination is an immediate revoking of the first amendment. Unlike our current conflict coverage in the Middle East, which is being held to a minimum due to the fact that other countries can watch American news broadcasts and thusly be able to discern our upcoming strageties, this is happen right here in our own backyard. It's inside our borders, and therefore, the people of this nation have a complete right to know.

Simply put, all of those things previously named and more have been there for over seven days, and during those seven days, we've not been told 'no, you can't be there to report this news'. Now all of a sudden, we are. And that smells funny to me.

Keeping people out of an area where occupants will be forced to leave for their safety (just started pushing back the press today), where you have fouled water((with more than just feces))(been like that since last Tuesday), dead bodies (again, since last Tuesday), barely contained fires and possible gas/fuel explosions (also since last Tuesday)... especially when it's really unclear if there are any armed nutcases still around (again, since last Tuesday) and you have reports of people pretending to be the Press just to enter the city...(that's gonna keep happening, reguardless)

As I see it, the press does have the right, nay, the responsibility to be there. Since before the hurricane hit, the press has been there. Before the majority of armed forces and rescue operations arrived, the press has been there. When everything started blowing up, the press was there. When looting was occuring, the press was there. now, quite suddely, someone doesn't want the press to be there... and you're not even remotely curious why???? That sends my 'Oh Shit' meter into overdrive.

Had they stated it more to the effect of 'due to national security, we're not allowed in' that'd be one thing. But to simply say 'no' without any reasonable explination is an immediate revoking of the first amendment. Unlike our current conflict coverage in the Middle East, which is being held to a minimum due to the fact that other countries can watch American news broadcasts and thusly be able to discern our upcoming strageties, this is happen right here in our own backyard. It's inside our borders, and therefore, the people of this nation have a complete right to know.

Simply put, all of those things previously named and more have been there for over seven days, and during those seven days, we've not been told 'no, you can't be there to report this news'. Now all of a sudden, we are. And that smells funny to me.
Well said.

It's because they want to hide the mass executions.

I don't need to see glossies of dead, bloated rotting corpses in the morning while I eat my fruit loops. Leave the dead some dignity.

I'm all for freedom of the press. But how much coverage is *too* much?
The reason I'm asking this is because while I saw a TON of converage about the cost in human lives and money, I've seen very little about the rebuilding of the levees or the French Quarter, which (according to TIME magazine) was relatively untouched.

Does the press in this case want to report it all, or just show grizzly scenes for higher ratings??

Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no.

I don't need to see glossies of dead, bloated rotting corpses in the morning while I eat my fruit loops. Leave the dead some dignity.

I'm all for freedom of the press. But how much coverage is *too* much?
The reason I'm asking this is because while I saw a TON of converage about the cost in human lives and money, I've seen very little about the rebuilding of the levees or the French Quarter, which (according to TIME magazine) was relatively untouched.

Does the press in this case want to report it all, or just show grizzly scenes for higher ratings??
Well, I haven't been watching tv, but I saw coverage of the levee repair online almost as it happened. I know the feeling about the pictures--they're distasteful--but they're important as well. They're documentation of what may be the worst natural disaster in this nation's history, and to be quite frank, I don't trust any government to tell that history objectively. I don't really trust the media to do it, but they're better than the government at least, and I say that having read stories from Germany describing the US media toadying up for Bush's photo-ops, making it look like there's stuff happening that really isn't.

Not to see dead bodies, but to see living evacuees, to see if our representatives are actually doing their job, to see the devistation so that we can understand exactly what's happend, and what's continued to happen.

as for the dead bodies, check ethics of journalism. Most channels/magazines/newpapers won't show a dead body simply for the fact it's immoral or unethical.

Since before the hurricane hit, the press has been there. Before the majority of armed forces and rescue operations arrived, the press has been there. When everything started blowing up, the press was there. When looting was occuring, the press was there. now, quite suddely, someone doesn't want the press to be there... and you're not even remotely curious why???? That sends my 'Oh Shit' meter into overdrive.

It's gonna be tricky, but...straight to siggy. :)

Well, they are busy evacuating the city completely right now. Technically there's no reason for them to take someone along that could take up the seat of someone('s pet) they're trying to rescue...

All we heard at first was, "Where's the government?! Where's the National Guard?!"

Now we hear "TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT! TOO MUCH NATIONAL GUARD!"

The press is all about the press, not the truth.

I'm tired of the whiners. Next the press will complain when a sniper takes one of them out that there was no protection in place for their precious freedom to report the next Pulizer Prize winner.

Get out of the way and let the overstressed, overworked and probably very freaked out by it all soldiers and law enforcement officials do their job.

Freedom of the press? yes! Censorship? no!

Freedom of the idiots in the press corps to get in the way and make a fuss that they aren't getting their way? NO.

If american media didn't seem to choose all stories on the "if it bleeds, it leads" motto, I'd have some more sympathy. Unfortunatly, the press also seems to do every thing it can to get in the way in an effort to scoop the competition.

All we heard at first was, "Where's the government?! Where's the National Guard?!"

Now we hear "TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT! TOO MUCH NATIONAL GUARD!"
I dont recall anyone saying "Why isnt the government and national guard in New Orleans trampling all over the Constitution". Neither does it appear anyone is saying 'too much government, to much national guard' but rather that their current actions are concerning. That seems not unreasonable to me.

The press is all about the press, not the truth.
That is as much the fault of their consumers as anyone elses. None the less I dont recall the Consitution having qualifications such as "unless the person or persons are self interested in which case they can get stuffed".

I'm tired of the whiners.
Really?

Next the press will complain when a sniper takes one of them out that there was no protection in place for their precious freedom to report the next Pulizer Prize winner.
I doubt that very much. Even if it were the case, once again I dont see why this would negate the provisions of the Constitution.

Get out of the way and let the overstressed, overworked and probably very freaked out by it all soldiers and law enforcement officials do their job.
I'm not aware that they were in the way.

Freedom of the press? yes! Censorship? no!

Freedom of the idiots in the press corps to get in the way and make a fuss that they aren't getting their way? NO.
Wow, it's really requiring quite some effort to stretch this one around. Is it the press you have a problem with, or is it a desire to protect those who the press are exposing as inadequate that motivates you to put such obvious spin on the issue?

Zagat, you're on top of this, as are you Esmiral.

Like I noted before, I have no real confidence that the US press will do a good job documenting this, even if they're left alone to do their jobs. The international press has already exposed them on at least three occasions as having set up shots for Bush's visits that look like stuff is getting done when it isn't--the second Bush leaves, the equipment leaves as well--so the major media is complicit in to some degree.

But it's also the only media with the resources necessary to document the aftermath, so even though they suck, I feel little option but to go with them. They need access to the flood zone. They need to take pictures and tell stories about this storm, real stories, not stage-managed propaganda.

I have to agree with The Nazz here. If they want to go in, let them. My God, half of those people were shot at during Operation Iraqi Freedom!

This is the biggest news story of the year and probably will be the biggest of the year.

I don't need to see glossies of dead, bloated rotting corpses in the morning while I eat my fruit loops. Leave the dead some dignity.

I'm all for freedom of the press. But how much coverage is *too* much?
The reason I'm asking this is because while I saw a TON of converage about the cost in human lives and money, I've seen very little about the rebuilding of the levees or the French Quarter, which (according to TIME magazine) was relatively untouched.

Does the press in this case want to report it all, or just show grizzly scenes for higher ratings??
I'm fairly certain the press just wants pictures of dead bodies. But they only respond to what we want on the six o'clock news. I don't see any reason why a credentialed reporter shouldn't be allowed unrestricted access to any non-sensitive part of the disaster area. Sensitive areas being things like the governer's office, local national guard and police headquarters...Things that are typically off-limits in good times.

The press NEEDS access to the Convention center and the Superdome, if only to document the squalor in which people were forced to endure.

The press NEEDS access to the Convention center and the Superdome, if only to document the squalor in which people were forced to endure.
And it need not work against the government, either. If it can be shown that a lot of the reported murder, robbery and rape stories were just rumours and cannot be substantiated, that can only be a good thing, right?

Having the army keep journalists out is not going to make the stories go away, that's for sure.

Having the army keep journalists out is not going to make the stories go away, that's for sure.
That is a lesson that anyone in government should have learned long ago. The fact that the bureacrats at FEMA think they can control what is printed is just amazing and unbelievable.

Isn't US democracy absolutely wonderful? Or the lack of it.

Nazz
Esmiral
Zagat
Delator
Corneliu
Jeruselem

If we had a "thumbs up" smiley -- you'd all get it. ;)

This is something that ought to bug people of every political stripe. It's unclear exactly who has given the order, but National Guard units are keeping reporters out of the area. Earlier, FEMA rejected requests from journalists (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06101601.htm) to accompany rescue boats and has requested that the media not make any photos of the deceased. Fortunately, the media has ignored this to some extent, and I say fortunately not because I get any great thrill from seeing dead bodies, but because it's necessary to document the effects of this storm.

But the piece I'm mainly bringing to you is this report from Brian Williams of NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8045532/#050907c) who's in New Orleans:


Now, laying blame aside, there's no call for this kind of treatment of the press. This is the story of the year, easily--this is the kind of storm that comes along, hopefully, only once in a lifetime. This needs to be documented by someone other than a government that just might have reason to cover up some mistakes--and I mean government on every level here, state, local and federal. All you have to do to see what happens when there's even the hint of secrecy is look at conspiracy theory websites, and if the government keeps reporters out, hoping to make themselves not look quite so bad, we'll be getting the mother of all conspiracies here.
It's about fuckin' time that the press was told to keep their asses out of dangerous areas. I've been watching the news on TV and haven't noticed any diminuation in the level or frequency of reporting, so I'm thinking this was due to highly local conditions. ( shrug )

The press NEEDS access to the Convention center and the Superdome, if only to document the squalor in which people were forced to endure.
It was a fuckin' HURRICANE, you reality-challenged hermit! People were DRIVEN there by the winds and water! They weren't FORCED to endure anything. As soon as it was possible, they were moved.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!

It was a fuckin' HURRICANE, you reality-challenged hermit! People were DRIVEN there by the winds and water! They weren't FORCED to endure anything. As soon as it was possible, they were moved.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!
Pal, are you off your Lithium today? Get a grip on the language...

It was a fuckin' HURRICANE, you reality-challenged hermit! People were DRIVEN there by the winds and water! They weren't FORCED to endure anything. As soon as it was possible, they were moved.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!

My o my, how right you are.. they wern't forced to do anything. They could have easily driven away to safety.. oh wait, they didn't have cars. Oh, oh, I got it, they could have taken the many safely provided busses... damn, nope, they didn't start using those until after the hurricane hit. Ummmm, oh, got it now, they could've hitched a ride with their friends.. nah, that wouldn't have worked either.. their friends were just as poor as they were. So, if i'm looking at this somewhat correctly, their options were stay home (and be drowned or thrown about in their homes as the winds ripped the houses off the foundations) or go to the shelters provided by the city. Which would you have chosen again?

Now, on the topic of the press, of course they shouldn't be allowed into H.Q. areas of the national guard, or the local NO police, or even FEMA for that matter. But if they're willing to risk their lives to report on those that have been risking their own lives , by God, let them. It only takes a few minutes to verify if they're press or not (phones rock, don't they?), and letting the American people know will ease fears, relax anger at the bodies that have been slow in responding to this disaster (a.k.a. the mayor, the govenor, FEMA, the non LA National Guard, the office of the president, and I'm sure many more), and allow a permanent documentation to this, so that if anything like it comes our way again, we know moreso than not, what we're up against.

Pal, are you off your Lithium today? Get a grip on the language...
I just have a rather low tolerance level for sheer stupidity. Sorry if you were offended.

It was a fuckin' HURRICANE, you reality-challenged hermit! People were DRIVEN there by the winds and water! They weren't FORCED to endure anything. As soon as it was possible, they were moved.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!

yeah man. those people actually wanted to sit at that convention center for five days with no food or water. when the buses showed up on day two the refugees turned them around saying that they liked it here.

mmm, 'centrism'

I just have a rather low tolerance level for sheer stupidity. Sorry if you were offended.
Let's look at the original question. Should the press be allowed to document the conditions that these folks endured?

Name calling may be very satisfying, but it really doesn't move the discussion along, does it?

And you'd have to do a lot worse to offend me. I would think that your use of profanity would be more of an embarassment...

It was a fuckin' HURRICANE, you reality-challenged hermit! People were DRIVEN there by the winds and water! They weren't FORCED to endure anything. As soon as it was possible, they were moved.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!


Well, that's easy to say from a warm and dry keyboard isn;t it?


Silly me for thinking that freedom and democracy was based upon the central tenant of an informed electorate. In reality we need to sit back, stick cotton in our ears, and hope for news reports that go:

"In other news. Something icky happened to some citizens somewhere that we can't give you the details about becuase we don't want to offend your delicate sensibilities. Just know that some people are having a tough time, that there is nothing anyone could have done differently, and please send money to the Red Cross. Now, back to Oprah...."

Well, that's easy to say from a warm and dry keyboard isn;t it?


Silly me for thinking that freedom and democracy was based upon the central tenant of an informed electorate. In reality we need to sit back, stick cotton in our ears, and hope for news reports that go:

"In other news. Something icky happened to some citizens somewhere that we can't give you the details about becuase we don't want to offend your delicate sensibilities. Just know that some people are having a tough time, that there is nothing anyone could have done differently, and please send money to the Red Cross. Now, back to Oprah...."
I think he's upset because I said 'forced'. That could imply that they were held in those cesspools against their will either by humans or by nature. According to Brian Williams in the first post, both entities were at fault.

I just have a rather low tolerance level for sheer stupidity. Sorry if you were offended.
Knock it off, Eutrusca. Don't bring that kind of garbage into this thread. It's uncalled for.

Do the words "madatory evacuation" not apply to the media?

I think he's upset because I said 'forced'. That could imply that they were held in those cesspools against their will either by humans or by nature. According to Brian Williams in the first post, both entities were at fault.
Well, they weren't forced into the Superdome and the Convention Center, but once there, they weren't allowed to leave until they were shipped out, so I think "forced" is a proper usage here.

Do the words "madatory evacuation" not apply to the media?
They shouldn't, not as far as I'm concerned. They don't apply to the people doing the reconstruction, after all.

Keeping people out of a area where occupants will be forced to leave for their safety, where you have fouled water (with more than just feces) dead bodies, barely contained fires and possible gas/fuel explosions... especally when it's really unclear if there are any armed nutcases still around and you have reports of people pretending to be the Press just to enter the city...

nope, no cause to keep people out... none at all. :rolleyes:


I agree 100%. I mean the PRESS has already shown enough dead people on tv for my tastes.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!
Gosh, I'm sorry, are the folks down in NO boring you with their suffering?

Easy cure -- go find something else to read about.

Jeeze! Shit happens. Get OVER it!
I assume you missed my earlier thread on the subject because of another forum ban. Linky: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442771

Well, that's easy to say from a warm and dry keyboard isn;t it?
When you've been up to your chin in rice paddie water that people have shit in for centuries, doing your best to dig a hole in the water and gaining on it, you can criticize me. Until then I recommend you go read a good book, take a walk, or find something constructive to do.

When you've been up to your chin in rice paddie water that people have shit in for centuries, doing your best to dig a hole in the water and gaining on it, you can criticize me. Until then I recommend you go read a good book, take a walk, or find something constructive to do.
You know the rules here as well as anyone--no one is above criticism. You put your ideas out there, expect to get them thrown back in your face on occasion.

When you've been up to your chin in rice paddie water that people have shit in for centuries, doing your best to dig a hole in the water and gaining on it, you can criticize me. Until then I recommend you go read a good book, take a walk, or find something constructive to do.



What? Something as constructive as calling people names?


Gosh.... wherever shall I find such a hobby?


Oh yes, and since you managed to wander through such filth as you describe - pray tell, why are you so against journalists doing the same?

When you've been up to your chin in rice paddie water that people have shit in for centuries, doing your best to dig a hole in the water and gaining on it, you can criticize me. Until then I recommend you go read a good book, take a walk, or find something constructive to do.
Were you flooded out of your house with only the clothes on your back, dumped into said paddie, and told you could never go home again, even though you weren't dead? And then were you told you weren't allowed to tell that story to anyone? (I'd think you'd have more sympathy for civilians.)

PS: That free press is part of the reason you got to be a war hero (Vietnam, right?) -- spreading American democracy and all.

I think he's upset because I said 'forced'. That could imply that they were held in those cesspools against their will either by humans or by nature. According to Brian Williams in the first post, both entities were at fault.

At the Convention Center they were forced to stay. The exits were barricaded and people who tried to leave were denied. If you physically force people to stay in a place and then don't take care of them there, and they end up dying, you have comitted murder.

Reminds me of the Ukrainian famine in the USSR. The authorities didn't let food in and wouldn't let citizens leave, so people ended up starving to death. In both cases the authorities committed negligent homicide.

You know the rules here as well as anyone--no one is above criticism. You put your ideas out there, expect to get them thrown back in your face on occasion.
Yep. And when you have some actual facts and logic, and have had a bit of real world experience then I might actually give some credence to what you say. :)

... pray tell, why are you so against journalists doing the same?
I'm not. I like to know what's going on as much as anyone else. I just don't despise to hear all the winning and complaining when the media are removed for their own good and the needs of the circumstances.

Were you flooded out of your house with only the clothes on your back, dumped into said paddie, and told you could never go home again, even though you weren't dead? And then were you told you weren't allowed to tell that story to anyone? (I'd think you'd have more sympathy for civilians.)

PS: That free press is part of the reason you got to be a war hero (Vietnam, right?) -- spreading American democracy and all.
ROFLMAO! Nope. The "free press" castigated us just as much as the friggin' "protestors."

I've gone without a roof over my head before, and may have to again; I've even gone without proper food at times. But I don't go whinning and complaining about how oppressed I am by the duly elected leaders of a democracy, even when they're liberals.

At the Convention Center they were forced to stay. The exits were barricaded and people who tried to leave were denied. If you physically force people to stay in a place and then don't take care of them there, and they end up dying, you have comitted murder.

Reminds me of the Ukrainian famine in the USSR. The authorities didn't let food in and wouldn't let citizens leave, so people ended up starving to death. In both cases the authorities committed negligent homicide.
You also suffer from a severe lack of facts, logic and history. Perhaps you should have paid attention in school. Oh yeah ... I forgot ... you are most likely a product of a "liberal" education that spent more time trying to build your "self-esteem" than teaching you the wisdom of what were referred to as "dead whitemen." My condolences.

You also suffer from a severe lack of facts, logic and history. Perhaps you should have paid attention in school. Oh yeah ... I forgot ... you are most likely a product of a "liberal" education that spent more time trying to build your "self-esteem" than teaching you the wisdom of what were referred to as "dead whitemen." My condolences.


And you suffer from a lack of a substantiated counter-arguments, given that all you are saying is "you're wrong" without providing any foundation, not to mention suffering from a complete lack of manners which, frankly, might suggest that you would be better staying AWAY from discussion on upbringing rather than inviting it.