Describe what Postman means by the term "information-action ratio." Now answer his question: How often does it occur that news causes you to alter plans, take some action, etc.? (He's not talking about weather or traffic news, but so-called "serious" news, the kind that shows up on the network evening news or the front page of a newspaper or as the lead item on a news Web site or NPR.) What does your answer tell you about the nature of what passes for news today? Please respond by 3 p.m., Wed., Sept. 12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVv9n7uLYHc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
As described by Postman, the "information-action ratio" is the proportion of real-world actions undertaken as a result of information received. More specifically in this instance, it refers to the number of real-world actions undertaken as a result of information received through the news.
How often do I take action due to information received from the news sources I frequent? To be blunt, hardly ever. The news I read tends to focus on geopolitics and national politics. I am (unfortunately) UNABLE to take any action with regards to geopolitics, and take action with regards to national politics as often as I can, which is once a year. One side of me wants to blame the this on the impotence thrust upon me by the structure of our bloated and uber-centralized federal government. There is a good argument to be made here, but I should really save it for another post.
The better point is, I COULD follow village or state politics, areas where I could, with a little energy, affect change through my actions; if I followed this news, my information-action ratio would be much higher. However, I choose the not to. I've realized how stupid this was in the past, how it is essentially making entertainment out of the news, which is often horrifying in nature and DOES affect certain people in a horrifying manner. I've felt pretty guilty about this, so I'm glad this class is blaming it on larger systems.
I feel the main reason I follow national and international news more often than the local news is simply because I enjoy ideas and issues and debating these things, and not many people are interested in local news. More importantly, there simply is MORE national and international news out there, which means more things to think about and debate.
I therefore feel that there IS news readily available out there that ANYONE could access from their computers. I blame the fact that I and others follow news essentially for entertainment on the readership, not the structure of the news industry.
As for the larger question of whether consumers or producers dictate the market (Postman obviously thinks that producers do) I have always believed that it was the consumers. In a free-market system, people demand what they want, and the producers comply in order to make money. I've recently reliezed there a few gaping holes in this argument. One of the largest ones is that consumers never DEMANDED that the television set be created; they couldn't, because one can't demand something that they have no concept of, that doesn't exist yet. Producers produced the television set, which took a little while to catch on, THEN the consumers demanded it. However, they can not be blamed for changing the public discourse from a propositional one to an image-based one, because, not only did they never demand the television, the never demanded that the public discourse be altered.
The "information-action ratio" is based on how much of the news you consume changes what you do in your day to day life.
Honestly, I have to agree and say my activities don't change that much based on what information I receive.
With national coverage, the stories are usually about some crisis that is very far away and I can't effect directly or some political issue that I already have a strong stance on and won't really change with just more of the same old debates and ideas.
My local news is limited because I don't have a TV so most of it comes from either The Oracle,Chronogram or word of mouth from various students and friends. Chronogram is more artsy general interest stuff and while The Oracle is a good paper, the college issues they cover are mostly events that have already happened and bureaucracy I can't really change unless I join some committee at the beginning of the year.
Word of mouth is a little different because I can hear about events I might want to go to around New Paltz or even problems that might effect my safety.When I heard about students being molested off campus I had a friend walk me home the other night because it was late and I was worried. That's about the extent of change in my actions.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's all the fault of infotainment, I think the broader problem is that myself and the rest of the public feel a large disconnect from what we can actually change. As a broke college student with no money or car, I can't really volunteer or donate money to any cause and politics are so screwed up right now I don't even want try and get into that three ring circus. I have gone to local benefits like the sit in protest the last couple years and Rock Against Racism, but those really don't do anything except raise some awareness and money for campus. Like I said before, you can shout and scream all you want, but unless you're on some committee and can deal with the extra time, paperwork and red tape, we're all kinda screwed change-wise.
I think what Postman means when he talks about the “information action ratio” is the amount of influence or relevance information holds over the way you live your life or make decisions. As Postman states, in a print-based culture the information-action ratio is close to 100%--meaning that almost every piece of information that was passed along had a direct impact on one’s life or choices. This ratio only began to decay after the telegraph, after information was no longer considered completely “sacred” and did not have to be directly related to your life. The concept of intelligence shifted, because it was no longer how one could apply their knowledge, but how much knowledge one had.
As for Postman’s question, news has very little impact on whether or not I alter my plans or life decisions. The news has to be astronomical in order for me to do so—not just “serious” news, but a step above even that. The information has to be so completely mind-boggling, something that disputes all other evidence and convictions in order for me to change my mind. For example, everyone is concerned about politics, and they have specific reasons on why they like particular politicians and policy. But it’s incredibly difficult to change their mind about that politician or policy, unless information or news so big it cannot be dismissed appears, and even then there are people who deny it ever existed.
This tells me that news today is no longer inherently valuable. Information is not valued for itself, but instead for how it can be twisted and used for individual gain. News only becomes important when it benefits us; what we believe, why we believe it, why we want it to be true.
The “information-action ratio” outlined by Postman is the ratio of action undertaken by the people receiving the information. Essentially, it is the quantification of the impact that certain information has on the public.
I have not taken action in any cause because the news that I received. The closest I have come to being a part of any movement was the contemplation of going down to Wall street last fall in the midst of the “Occupy” movement. In the end I saw no point in going down to the city for the weekend for a movement that had no cause or message besides “fuck you Wall Street.” This isn’t to say that I am a stagnant human being with no drive to change or better the world around me. I don’t think news is brought to us in a way that gets the people riled up. The occupy movement should have actually had an impact, but the news portrayed those in attendance as a nuisance and looking for handouts not as a group of people getting sick of being dragged through the shit while 1% of the nation plays with all the money.
Majority of the news in the nation is opinionated and pushed through a filter that is always pandering to one or the other wing of the same political media vulture that picks apart publics perception of news. IF there is an issue that maybe makes a certain party look bad maybe Fox will cover it in a certain way that MSNBC would. They may a lot a certain amount of time or they may only give it a brief. There are absolutely skewed reports right from the top of the government that are reported without a hint of back-checking in order to keep public perception of the war, as an example, in check. When this has become rampant in the news and journalism industry than it will be indictment of our freedoms and create an apathetic public body that will blindly follow tyranny.
“Information-action ratio” is a term that refers to the information we are receiving compared to what we can do with that information. It refers to the actions that we perform based on what we learn on the news. Postman states how before the telegraph people were able to do more with the news that they were hearing. After the invention of the telegraph, the information presented to the audience was not as easy to take action on anymore. This is true even more so today with the news being presented on the television. Postman continues on to talk about how it is uncommon for people to alter their plans after hearing the news. I would definitely have to agree with Postman. There are many times when I will watch the news and feel compassionate toward the matter but will not do anything about it. This is the same way that a lot of people feel. It does not make us bad people because it is nearly impossible for people these days to act upon the news. The people that do are seen as heroes. I feel as if almost anything can pass for news today. The video that we saw the first day of class that was on the Onion about the bullshit has to do with this point. It proves that the news is “bullshit” and as a society we are all used to it. I think that this is a cycle between the people taking in the news and the people producing the news. People today are used to this type of news and want it. If you are not taking a class like this one or are not thinking about the news in this way, I don’t think that people would notice anything wrong with the news in the first place. The people producing the news will continue to provide this news because it is being watched/read.
The information-action ratio described by Postman refers to a person’s likelihood to act on the information they get form the media. In our media, we are inundated with a constant flow of news stories, most of which have little to no impact on the ways we life our lives. These stories are built up and made to seem more important than they actually are making it hard to differentiate between what is actually important and what is simply filler content. I would say that it is exceptionally rare that a news story causes me to change my plans, and on the few occasions that I have, the changes have been less than drastic. Many times when we hear about a horrific tragedy in some far off country, we can simply take a few minutes to go on our computers and make a donation to whatever charity is claiming to be helping the situation. Once we are done, if we choose to donate at all, we simple go back to our lives as if nothing happened at all. In most cases I feel that there is little for me to do to help the situation and I usually don’t remember the story just days later. This makes me believe that what we have all come to accept as “news” may not really be of any value at all.
Information-action ratio describes the relationship between the information one receives in the form of news and the actions one takes to do something about this information. When the news distributed was local, it was easier for people to put it into context and to try to solve the problem presented by the news. Postman argues that after the telegraph, we began to receive trivial news from all over the country, not because it affected us in some way, but just because it was possible to receive it (65). Because of this information overload, "we were sent information which answered no question we had asked, and which, in any case, did not permit the right of reply (69)."
I'm not really sure when the last time a piece of news caused me to take action. I remember donating money to Haiti after the earthquake but it didn’t make me feel anymore connected or informed about the people there or their stories. I think the content of national news today does not allow the public to feel like they can actually affect change. Postman argues that this influx of news makes it difficult for us to make sense of our world and I think this is why we have such a difficult time properly reacting to the information we are given. We either feel too disconnected from the news, like it’s happening too far away, or we don’t actually know what a plausible reaction would be. Since everyone else seems to feel this way, I think news today is largely used to entertain us and we are tricked into thinking we are more informed because we have bits and pieces of information from all around the world. Because none of this news is put into context, it essentially becomes trivia.
Postman's 'information-action ratio' is a way of understanding whether news, or the information processed and delivered by the media, is actionable, or can be used in a productive way. Thus, 'information-action' becomes a measure of the usefulness of a given media content in actually guiding individual citizens to take a political action.
I think this highlights a broader, values-based question: Is media simply a product to be consumed or should it be a discursive medium that inhabits the public sphere, enables idea-exchange and serves to inform citizens and shape public opinion in a proactive way?
We're taught that "news" must have certain qualities to be worthy of publication or broadcast. It must be timely and interesting. Conflict helps sell a story. Emotions draw the audience's interest. However, we are not taught that context matters.
I think Postman, in the chapter "Now...This" perfectly lays out why the de-contextualized nature of news leads to a low information-action ratio. Talking about events as independent blips, moments on a timeline, leads to an inability to connect the dots or recognize historical and social processes that give meaning to our world.
The information-action ratio, as Postman describes it, refers to the amount of information someone receives versus his or her ability to act upon that information. He writes that ever since information has been able to travel long distances in a short amount of time, beginning with the telegraph (and now, more exaggeratingly, with the internet,) people have been able to do something with or about the information they receive less and less, especially as the volume of content constantly increases.
I would mostly agree with Postman’s rather disturbing observation that we do almost nothing with or about of the news we read, hear or watch each day. That reporting the news is largely irrelevant would be pretty disheartening to admit, as a student of journalism, and someone who would like to think their career choice worthwhile, if not for the fact that while I agree in part with the theory, I also think that it’s missing the point. While I personally may not act upon each piece of news I receive, in the long run, I like to be an informed person, and I think everything I learn can help me somewhere down the line. In terms of the bigger picture, the nature of a democracy requires an informed citizenship, in order to elect effective leaders who can make educated, successful decisions. Therefore, a truthful and independent press is required to inform and educate the public. The public may not be able to act upon each and every piece of news they receive, but they really don’t always need to. They may not be able to do something about a war in foreign country, for example, but they may be able to, when the time comes, elect someone who can do something about it. Postman dismisses this argument a little disparagingly, saying “You may, of course, cast a ballot for someone who claims to have some plans, as well as the power to act. But this you can only do once every two or four years by giving one hour of your time, hardly a satisfying means of expressing the broad range of opinions you hold.” I really don’t think that the amount of time an action takes to complete is relevant to its significance. Voting may only take a few seconds, but its effects last forever. Furthermore, there's the old maxim about those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? News is like history in- the -making. If everyone is informed about the past and present, perhaps we can make better decisions in the future.
The information-action ratio is a term that describes the "decontextualized information environment," an environment where media bombards its audience with an abundance of information that is not really applicable to their lives. As Postman states, the news mostly just gives people something to talk about amongst each other, but rarely provides information that causes them to take action, or to rethink opinions and beliefs that they already hold. I think this is an accurate description of the media environment, as it certainly reflects my own experience.
However, I do find myself wondering who is responsible for the existence of the information-action radio. Is it the media's fault for providing irrelevant information? Is it the audience's fault for only looking to news that affirms beliefs they already have, and letting news that they don't agree with or don't feel is important go in one ear and out the other?
The whole idea really makes me question the importance of news media; what are we doing? Why does it matter that information is spread throughout the world and country if nobody is going to DO anything or CHANGE anything? Obviously, people shouldn't be kept in the dark, but it does make the news media seem totally pointless and impotent.
When Postman says, “For most of us, the weather will sometimes have such consequences…” (68) I have to laugh because I barely ever check the weather which is, arguably, the most basic of news. If Postman were as cynical as I am, he would probably word his section on “information-action ratio” more along the lines of: Guess what? Our society is not only uninformed from preferring to watch Toddlers and Tiaras over the nightly news, but the ones who DO watch the news, are too damn lazy to get off their couches to do anything about…anything!” (try to imagine that in Lewis Black’s voice and with more swearing).
I think, when it comes to the “serious” news that we’re offered, Americans generally lean towards two options. The first, and most common, is that they look at footage of something tragic, put their hand to their mouth and murmur how terrible the catastrophic occasion or public shooting or burning elementary school video is, maybe have a brief discussion about it with whoever’s sitting next to them and then turn back to Bravo. Or their microwave TV dinner. The other option people seem to lean towards is getting really overly passionate about an idea that they only know vague details about and to run with it while assuming that they’re doing something. A perfect example is when the Kony 2012 movement exploded on Facebook and became popular. I had a lot of friends (and yes, I was guilty of the frenzy too) who bought the bracelets and posters and who marked up walls to raise awareness and felt that they were making a substantial impact but after a few weeks completely lost interest.
I know I’m portraying our society negatively, but I do have to take into account the information overload that we’ve been talking about so much in class. I think people have an inherent desire to want to take action and contribute to the major decisions that our country should be making as a whole. We have this desire but I think that it’s too often squelched by the constant stream of news and information and pictures and videos and on and on and on (see what I did there?). After trying to sort through all of the information and trying to “pick a cause,” I think a lot of us shut down and just simply lose interest. The news, for trying to cram in so much into their allotted time, is disserving our country by not allowing us to view and analyze issues at a humanly rate.
What Postman is referring to by the term "information-action ratio" is the ratio between the news that's put out verses how much of that we can actually use to act upon in our daily lives. It questions or looks at the amount of news produced and whether any of it is even affective in our lives.
Now that I think of it, its not often at all that the news causes me to alter plans or take a particular action. But being the kind of person I am, some stories I see on the news does inspire me to want to create some sort of change we lack. Like when I hear about the violence in inner city communities, or when I see stories about young adults who took some sort of initiative to make their school a better learning environment, etc. When ever I do actually sit in front of a television and watch the news it's local, like Brooklyn News 12. I like to hear what's going on in my community, even if I don't feel the need right away to act upon it. I just like to know who and what I'm living around, what's going on, and I feel for the most part the local news I watch does that. Any types of international or serious national news I read about is done on the web.
I think most people look at the news as something that just keeps you informed. I think most people don't feel there's much they could do but keep what they see in mind and protect themselves. However, I do feel that part of the problem with this is what's considered news these days. What I think Postman is getting at with the "information-action ration" overall is that before technology allowed us to amplify the news, news probably meant more to us, and we'd act upon the news we were receiving because it was almost sacred, I guess. But now, we are kind of careless with information, and it's honestly sad how fast ignorance can spread through the web.
The term "information-action ratio" is based upon how your daily life is affected by the news. He is talking about substancial important news and why your plans would change because of it.
As of now, or from what I can remember, the news doesn't impact my plans for the day. I mean, unless New York City is under lockdown then it probably would affect my plans for the day. But other than that the way I watch, read and/or listen to the news is to be informed, to share and to develop my own opinion to be more educated. Even the shooting at the Empire State Building did not stop be from driving through the city to get to New Paltz.
It is hard for me to say how I think about the passing of the news if it does not directly impact me. I mean I distinctly remember being pulled out of school and going home on 9/11, but since then that was the only time I felt endangered. Even though the news does not change my plans for the day, I could sometimes feel a change in the long-run. It's that or New York is a safer place than I thought.
The news that Postman is describing is news that makes for a good debate. Other then when I receive news I use it for a platform to strike conversation. I would rather listen to other people's opinions and have a conversation about the message or topic behind what happened. So I guess in a way it does change my plans; my plans for conversation.
What Postman means by the term “information-action ratio” is the amount of real world action one takes due to what they heard on the news. At first when I read this question I thought that, yes I o take some action like, changing what I wear to suit the whether, but thinking about it on a more global scale I realized that I don’t really take any action at all.
I mean, when I heard the tsunami hit Japan I did donate once but that’s really it. It’s not like I went over there to be part of the clean up crew. Like Rachael said we can always go to events that raise awareness but they don’t really do anything. My high school once had a thing where kids went and stayed at school overnight and slept in cardboard boxes to raise awareness for homelessness. I mean, its an interesting idea and I’m sure you could donate some, but looking back on it I think that it didn’t really do anything. All anyone was talking about is how they slept in a box last night. I think that what this tells us about the news today is that it is too jumbled and too disconnected with people that they feel the need to actually do something. When we hear about these real world problems, its presented in a way where it gets mixed up with ten other pointless stories. They just jump from one bit of news to the other without focusing on main issue, the one that matters and I think that because of this people feel overwhelmed and therefore hopeless that they can actually do anything.
The information-action ratio, in Postman's lingo, is defined based on how much an average person changes his/her day to day living in response to something seen or heard on the news. He is questioning whether or not people take any sort of action when "hard-hitting" news reaches our ears?
Now personally I am forced to admit that I hardly ever change my habits based on what I've seen in the news ... and this includes my outfit according to the weather forecast. I think that, being humans, we are inclined to respond to tragic and serious news very superficially. We like to put on a sad face, post a sympathetic status on our Facebooks, maybe even crack open our wallets and donate a dollar or two and then move on completely. Something that comes to my mind is the incident in Colorado that happened not even a month ago. I swear it was all I heard about for two weeks straight, and for good reason, and all of a sudden it was completely forgot about. We as a society go through news trends. We all respond to the same tragic thing, throwing our support and our sympathies, and then collectively we move on without a backward glance.
Why does this happen? Because the news makes us move on by throwing hundreds of other tragedies in our faces daily. There physically isn't enough time to stop and digest what we've heard because we have to keep up. Not only are we desensitized, but I really think that we have lost interest. The news presents information is a carefree and meaningless way, that news itself has lost its meaning. The word "news" doesn't hold the same value that it used to nor does it invoke the same passion.
The "information-action ratio" refers to the amount of action taken as a result of receiving information from the news compared to the amount of information given.
I grew up in an environment that taught me to regard the news as complete fear generating crap. On the rare occasion that I do watch or read news I almost never make any action for the sake of what I see. The main reason for this is because of a point Postman makes a number of times, simply it does not have anything to do with me. Even news stories that happen close to where I live usually do not pertain to me whatsoever which means even if I had the urge to take action there would likely be nothing useful for me to do.
We like to think that we are affected by the news and that we have to power to do something about the stories we see but in reality this is restricted to feeling emotions of horror or joy and expressing our opinions to family, friends and neighbors about the days news. What passes for news today is nothing more than food for pointless thought. It has succeeded in conditioning us to think that taking time out of your day to contemplate something that has nothing to do with your life is normal.
Postman uses the term “information-action ratio” in Chapter 5 to describe the ratio of information we get and the amount of action we take upon receiving this information. He argues that with the large amount of useless information we’re used to receiving, we’re used to not taking any sort of action even when the information may affect our lives. When the communication was oral there was a high “information action ratio”, but after the telegraph and currently the television, our “information action ratio” is extremely low.
In all honesty, the news doesn’t affect my plans or make me take action at all (in a physical manner). The only time I can remember being physically affected by the news was when my mom came and picked me up from school on 9/11. Now, I feel that I am affected emotionally whenever a major issue arises. For example, the Colorado shooting, affected me so much emotionally because there really was nothing I could do to physically help here in New York.
A great example that our “information action ratio” is low in our society today was when the Kony 2012 movement broke out this past March. The Kony 2012 viral video was all over my Facebook and Twitter news feeds, but no one did anything. Everyone made it a point to put it as their Facebook status or a tweet; but in all reality, what will that do in the long run? Absolutely nothing.
This shows that our society has been taught that as technology progresses we don’t need to make any action unless the news directly benefits or affects us in one way or another.
Postman defines the “information-action ratio” as the likelihood that we will respond to information by taking action, and he goes to on to describe how during print culture of the 18th and 19th centuries, the information-action ratio was “sufficiently close so that most people had a sense of being able to control some of the contingencies in their lives. What people knew about had action-value.” However, in the digital age created by telegraphy, the whole world has become the context for news. We are so bombarded by information that we’ve become complacent, and our information-action ratio has dramatically declined.
Serious news does have the ability to cause action, but rarely is it “hands-on” action. Most of the time, when we hear about a headline story for a tragedy that occurred, if we respond with action, it is by digging into our pockets and donating money to causes. Some people even think that sharing an article on the event on facebook qualifies as responding with action. But it isn’t- rather, it making other people (your facebook friends) aware of the information, instead of you yourself taking action and contributing to a cause. An example of this was the KONY 2012 campaign that occurred this past spring. Everyone watched the KONY video. Everyone got worked up. Many people donated money, shared the video on facebook, and vowed to participate in the “Cover the Night” event that was intended to make KONY infamous. But that was pretty much all anyone had the power to do. We could not travel to Africa and capture/kill KONY ourselves, which brings me to my next point. Much of the time, we don’t have the ability to take real action on what we see in the news. We can respond in little ways, and some people do respond in big ways (like the people who jumped on a plane and flew down to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck to help rebuild, diving into the action themselves). But that is limited by the authority, time, and money we possess. Despite all of this, I do think people should take more action in response to the news, including myself.
I think this tells me that tragedy and big scary headlines tend to sell more newspapers than positive news. This has always been a fact, but I think it is just as true today as it was during the print culture. People seem to respond with action to tragedies more than anything, but we are still limited in what we do and what we consider “action.”
Postman's term “information-action ratio” refers to the amount of information that people receive versus the action they take (based on said information).
In a media-saturated society where entertainment is packaged as hard-hitting news, it it hard to try to weed out what to pay attention to and what to take action on. It's not often that I take true, serious action but there have been recent news stories that have peaked my interest. For example, last fall the coverage of Occupy Wallstreet caused me to take a trip down to Zuccotti Park. However, I didn't really take true action like actually getting involved in the protest. It was more of a spectacle to me and my friends then anything else. I read everything I could about the Occupy movement but when it came down to joining the protesters, I didn't do that. Also, the recent remarks by Todd Akin about “legitimate” versus “illegitimate” rape caused me to right an editorial about it, and our country's rape culture. However, I didn't take real action. Editorials are important, but that's as far as my involvement went.
Today, people receive more information than they could possible act upon so they act upon nothing. The amount of "news" we receive is debilitating and, quite frankly, paralyzing to readers. I don't think today's news cause people to want to get involved, to change the status quo, to try to alter the course of history. News today is not news (at least to me), because news should call people to action, it should rile them up. News today doesn't do that. It is hyperbole and entertainment and, for the most part, noise without saying anything.
Information-action ratio simply put is, the amount of information that has a significant impact on the so-called informed on a daily basis. The way Postman uses it is in asking how much of the news of the day truly matters, or affects us as individuals. How much of the news causes us to take action?
I can honestly say that there has only been one significant occurrence in the past 15 years on the news that has caused me to alter my plans. That was 9/11/01. Before, and embarrassingly since I did not, and do not pay much attention to the news. I feel that I was always able to see the news for what it was and still remains -- mostly frill. I remember at a young age watching the 10 o'clock news or whatever it is, and thinking that I really wanted to hear the thing that every person should know lest they DIE a horrible, painful, and tragic death. Then as I sat through commercial after commercial, and shootings and drownings and politics -- finally at the end of the show was the revealing of the super secret thing. It was some nonsense like aspartame in diet soda had been linked to cancer, or rayon is the slow killer.
After that I realized that the news wanted to sell me something. A car, a razor, food, sex, a better this, a bigger that. That was the only purpose of that show. Now it appears that celebrities are the talk of the news. If only I cared about Kim whats-her-face and Kanye doouchebag. I'd really be interested and "informed" at that point.
Politics, likewise, never interested me either because I feel them all to be liars, and I don't truly believe that they have much of a say more than what or whom is backing them. But politics would not likely alter my day in a way that other breaking news could.
I think the problem with this is that our country feeds on fear and nonsense. We have been accustomed to being sold things to the point that we can never go back. Even in the history section of Postman's book he talks about how Americans, even back in the colonial times, had a penchant for buying up whatever was popular at the time. Albeit books, the early Americans were still being sold on something that removed them from reality, or gave them status, or validated some strange innate sense of needing to belong -- to fit in -- in order to pass as a human being.
Post a Comment