<![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I saw another 'trendspotting' article four years ago that claimed that marketing to women was "finally moving beyond 'shrink it and pink it'!" I guess that trendspotting article was off-base, too.

I am not surprised to see this from the Times. While many of their news features are excellent, their 'Life and Styles' ('Life/Styles'? Something like that) section is always dredging up tired, out-of-date stereotypes and peddling sexist, classist tripe. They wrote a huge article on House Speaker Pelosi's fashion sense when she came to power, they occasionally put really serious, non-frivolous issues that happen to concern women in 'Life and Styles'. Occasionally one of their articles will apply the same incisive intellect to sociological and gender issues that they do to economics and politics, but it's very hit or miss, which makes me think it's probably individual writers getting it right, and an editorial board that doesn't really notice either way.

Eilonwy

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> And obviously from the photo, women enjoy electronics they can use while only wearing a bra.

Dustin L.

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @mylife: Giz geared towards girls would be Popgadget. It's boring =)

Xenobiologista

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I'd like to be female reader number 17 if at all possible. :P

I don't buy pink gadgets. I don't buy gadgets based on whether they'll fit into a purse, not that I carry one. (I use a messenger bag to carry my over-abundance of gadgets)

I do have an iPod, though. But mainly because I wanted a fierce amount of space with which to store my many many mp3s.

I think articles like this only serve to further an outdated stereotype that refuses to die.

Way to notice and call out such an awful article, Matt. Gold star for Giz! :P

On a side note, I don't mind the "Man Stuff" name. I figure that since female readers are so few and far in between, we can put up with Giz being geared around guys. I'd hate to see a Giz geared around girls. Honestly.

LilMonk

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @sanjsrik
I'll get back to you as soon as I'm finished formulating excuses for all the childish joy in my life.


squarie

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @Squarie, can you really bring my database back up? My tables need reindexing as well...

mmm, run my sql
(I expect that is the kind of high fiving that the writers of the article were giving each other)

No really, I'm NOT making sexist comments just to get slapped so that I know my existence is valid.
(LOL)

sanjsrik

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @TBT

I'm sorry you can't share the joy of a bejeweled Hello Kitty Medallion. It's not about need, it's about something fun that just makes you smile.

squarie

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I am glad to see the female readership of Giz responding to this.

I still don't think Matt answer my question: Does Giz even have any female staff reporters anymore? If so, what is their take on this?

@TBT: "Beautiful design is beautiful design." kudos.

Windhawk

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> bunny_rabid quoted the article...

heyyou

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I'm female reader #10 or so, and a native New Yorker who until I saw that yesterday was pretty proud to call NYT my hometown paper. Letter to the Editor time...as if they'd ever publish it...

Beautiful design is beautiful design. If you make something elegant enough, you don't need any pink Hello Kitty sequin designs...like there's any excuse for a grown woman to have them anyway...

also, why do they think women can't read at higher than a 5th grade level? the lack of perspicacity here, at the nation's self-proclaimed "paper of record" frightens me (and I did NOT learn that word in the 5th grade, tyvm, so I guess I shouldn't expect to see it in their dumbed down "News for Women").

Thanks for actually having the sensibility to call them out on this, Giz!

TBT

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Just because i might want a bejeweled Hello Kitty medallion on my laptop lid, doesn't mean I can't bring your database back up and analyze your security risks with it.

squarie

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I just lost all respect for the NY Times. If their editors cannot catch and stop a lame, stereotypical, numbnutz article like that one, how can I trust their Iraq reporting?

bunny_rabid: If you created that story yourself, I award you the Lycanthrope Award for Sarcasm. If you actually *found* that article somewhere, please tell me what publication NEVER to read.

kalfeer

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Hmmm...I got a pretty big gadget, and it's made for a woman. Badum-bump!

Yeah, yeah...I'll leave the room...

Seriously though, that's one of the stupidest articles the Times has printed.

Aznbuddy

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Wow. Total bullshit. Yes, I am a woman, and yes I do like smaller gadgets (electronically speaking...). But who doesn't? And just because they're easier to use doesn't mean they've been dumbed down or have any less functions. I mean, hell, if we didn't make electronics smaller and easier to use, we'd be stuck with computers that take up an entire wall. The article was obviously written by a man.

*And I am DISGUSTED by what I read in bunny_rabid's post. I cannot STAND women like that. They give us a bad name. We are NOT all dumb shits.

xXxDiamondInTheRoughxXx

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Trackback

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I really hate to admit it, but one of the reasons I didn't buy a dSLR when I got a new camera last year was because it wouldn't fit comfortably into any of my purses. I also decided that I'm not a good enough photographer to pick up an expensive camera and the lens addiction that would come with it.
I do call BS on the rest of it, though. I grew up in a household where mom knew how to program everything, and dad couldn't even work the answering machine. Saying only women need simple is as sexist as it gets.

kerry

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @ms.adriancole:

Come on, we got the Man Show (okay, HAD the man show), we got playboy, okay, well, hef needs 9 viagras to get OUT of bed, but come on leave us something...

sanjsrik

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Girls don't need dumber gadgets but they do tend to gravitate to aesthetically pleasing ones you can't deny that. Tech is still a hobby dominated by men. Women just don't spend as much time as we do to learn and read about it so they are percieved as being unable to understand it. Women on average know more about shoes then men. It isn't that men are dumb it is just an interest that for the most part we don't familiarize ourselves with and thus are unkowledgeable about. Same goes with technology.

SouthernNixon

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> another femme-nerd here. thanks Matt for having our back. so while we're on the subject, i don't really care for the "man-stuff" column. i like the stuff just fine, but not the name. did you gentlemen ever think that it might be the least bit off-putting to your lady readers?

ms.adrianicole

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> As a female I can attest that I do not buy pink colored gadgets but maybe that is because I am in my thirties. If I was a Squeeing teen or twenty-something I just might.

TechluvinGirl

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @icytooth, you SURE you want to advertise you got a smaller easier to use "gadget"?

hmm?

sanjsrik

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Wowee. Thanks for posting this, Matt! As female reader #8 or so, I'm happy to see the Giz debunk this article.

dayla

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> why in the hell does better usability and good design amount to being just for women...

I read giz almost everyday and had to come out the box to reply to this post... I'm a woman... a web designer.. I hate PINK... I own a Zen... I love design and I love programming...

if anything... dumbing things down truly benefits all the computer/technology inept people out there who don't even know the difference between a PDF and an e-mail. I work just blocks from the White House with all men - republicans for that matter - who all turn to me to fix whatever problem they have with computers.. there's some here who don't even know how use OUTLOOK! computers have become TOO user friendly. I think products are being dumbed down for Americans more so than a specific gender...

pfft nytimes

tigressa

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> As female reader #3, I can say I'm not offended by this at all. If the New York Times insists on being ignorant assholes, let them do it. We all (or most of us) know it's not true. Thanks Giz!

The Sword Master

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> BAH!! My wife rocks a good old fashioned black, T-series ThinkPad, and has no urge to ever own a Mac. Who says that women want more form than function? And nooooooo, I didn't mean that Macs aren't functional. They function perfectly well as paperweights as soon as the AppleCare plan runs out. ;)

psattler

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Are you sure that article is from the NY Times and not The Onion?

agentmckay

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I'm a guy, and I hate small, easy-to-use gadgets. That's why I'm writing this on an ENIAC that I bought on eBay using an Apple Newton.

Jesse in Japan

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> My girlfriend has a blue iPod nano and loves the Wii, both of which are small, easy to use and aesthetically pleasing....

I don't knowing about the dumbing down, but there is at least some truth to what they said.

crichols82

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @freeway8989: It's not just girls. Almost everyone I know and see on the street who has a mp3 player has an iPod. Girls and businessmen alike wander into stores asking for iPods. It's a matter of brand awareness and knowledge, not sex.

I own a Zen; so was my last player. I put my own music on it -- it's not rocket science -- but I get my boyfriend to build my computers.

Gloria

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> What gets me about this is the sheer number of hands an article goes through before an article is published. One so-called forward-thinking person coming up with this tripe is frightening enough. Where are the editors? Did nary a proofer raise an eyebrow? I should give the typesetter a pass, but since they're making broad strokes, I'll lump him/her into the cave(wo)man category as well. Downright frightening and insulting.

I can only hope that I will soon learn of the retraction via this blog, because lord knows I refuse to read the Times.

Eliamias

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> NY TImes: "Women Like It Small"

...good job, guys.

imaria

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Whatever with the article...blah blah blah.

Matt, you are bomb ass for slipping another picture of her in within a week!
+10 points

vagrant

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> "I'd rather read a romance novel." You have GOT to be kidding--where do they get these women from?

I thought the NYT was supposed to be that great bastion of forward-thinking, liberal intellectualism. Srsly, wtf?

Michael

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I wonder if the Asus C90S I've preordered is "female friendly". Hmm. And here I was thinking of naming it Trogdor the Burninator, but now that I've read this article, I'm realizing the err of my ways. I think now I'll grow my nails and get the super portable Asus S6 (who needs to game?). While I'm at it I think I'll start shopping couture. For those of you that might follow, NY Times: I wish I could hate you to death.

Signed, Girl.

Implode

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Freaking hilarious, Bunny_Rabid - thank you for that. :)

Cetrian

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> "I'm writing this on a macbook, and adore my tiny w810i"...

Me too, does that mean I'm gay?

TheBugMan

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]>
bunny_rabid says:

Smaller, Easier to Read Stories Are Made for Women

Not true at all. I didn't read past that one line in your post since I noticed it was around novel length.

Darkest Daze

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I'm a guy and I prefer smaller tech toys because you can pocket em.

superbmtsub

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I think most people in general like smaller gadgets because they're easier to carry around, esp. when you have many. As a female I don't think that gadgets need to be "dumbed down" as long as they are designed in an intuitive way, I say the more functions the better.

@lesliegordon: It's the same case here. I'm the one who fix all my guy friends' PCs! Sad!

wage

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Women seem to enjoy big, heavy irons just fine? And really, if they don't, who cares? Besides, the exercise is good for their fat asses.

Get back on the treadmill, there's a lurve.

gee2

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> A shame that you know more than a guy?

sakko

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Aaaaaaah...Boobs!

o0adam0o

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Funny. I am actually the geek and install the music on my husband's MP3 player. It happens to be an Ipod, but smaller in size than mine. I'm still amazed at the stereotypes and disappointed in the Times.

What number am I in your female clientèle? 6? 7?

I've actually had tech support guys ask me out just because I understood (and in most cases knew) more than they did...... What a shame!

lesliegordon

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Im in the marketing dept of a large-ish electronics company and often have the opportunity to read some of the transcripts from the customer service call centre. First of both sexes are equally just as capable of saying or doing really dumb things, sorry guys are not automatically good with gadgets thats a fantasy. Many of the fairer sex do not like purchasing "sexist hardware", in fact many like the bigger tougher (can I say testosterone driven) gadgets out there, either because they like the reliability and durability (often more features too) or they don't like to stuff around with something designed for some distorted sexist model of a female.

PS. My mothers method of shopping is to first ask the clerk "what is the most powerful [place name here] you have.. heh

LinuxGalore

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Funniest, sadest article this year. I thought they were going to delve more into why women are so concerned about rechargeable batteries being fully charged. Anyone who's watched Coupling and the episode about how intimidating it is for man to date a woman who's remotes never have batteries may understand.

technobee

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I am a woman...I love gadgets. I am the one everyone comes to with questions about new gadgets, how to use them, etc. Most of these folks are MALE. My license plate is GADGT(heart)R. Gizmodo is the first section at the top of my Yahoo Home page. Please, I am a girlie old lady and gadgets make my heart race! If the gadget is functional, just gimicky enough to be a fun toy, it should appeal to any gender! But..all said and done, I do like them in girlie colors BUT, no other gender biases, please!

judyro

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I'm not sure what number Girl Giz Reader I am but I think I may have thrown up a little.

Thanks for writing this up for the crap that it is Giz. You have restored my faith in you.

I will note that long fingernails actually makes typing on small keyboards such as my Blackjack easier.

mighty_squid

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Wow......just...wow...probably the worst article I've read this week...yeeesh

and as far as I'm concerned gadgets shouldn't have to be to user friendly or trendy or popular or particularly pretty...although they are a definite plus...they should just...you know...work right...actually that sounds like the women I try to pick up...not exactly the most popular, or the best dressed, or the prettiest, but damnit she's got more personality and hutzbah than anyone around her...or its entirely possible that I'm putting way too much thought into this...

ANYWAYS

The writer of that article needs to be tarred, feathered, and/or burned at the stake. BURN HIM!!

Penguin4x4

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Well, as Elle in Legally Blonde said, "Whoever said orange was the new pink was seriously disturbed." Yup. I may have a pink Razr, but I am seriously disturbed by the NY Times article. Not because it was inane, I'm used to that in "Women use technology--who knew?" articles. No, it just missed the point. Usable technology will always sell. Elegant and usable technology will sell more. Gender aside, please.

techsophist

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Guys like smaller gadgets because, we only have pockets. A chick can carry a cavernous purse and be fine. We cant get cavernous pockets...unless we want to look like MC hammer

Mless

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Page 1: NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women
Page 2: Man Stuff - The Best of Uncrate

legerdemain

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> My wife is so far removed from being one who follows the herd or allows others to think for her. That said, I'm the one that puts music onto her Zen for her. Could she? Of course she could. Am I more tech savvy? Well, yes. We go with our strengths, you see. THIS would offend her, yet she falls completely into that stereotype. Her doctorate, reading, cultural experiences for both of us and handling the bills are her forte. She leaves the Zen, car maintainance, mowing and choosing wine for dinner to me because I ENJOY those things, not because I'm male and she's female. We talked last Sunday about the Mother's Day/Father's Day ads. Her life is as far removed from the pursuit of household perfection and pink gadgets as mine is from golf and polo shirts. Yet still, the images bombard us.......

CafeRacer1200

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Smaller, Easier to Read Stories Are Made for Women

Nancy Duarte professes no affection or affinity for newspapers. "I typically don't read newspapers," Ms. Duarte said without apology. "They're unwieldy. Also, the ink gets on your fingers. Then if you touch your white silk blouse, it's ruined."

Eight months ago, Ms. Duarte discovered that she could view her news on the World Wide Web. She found news stories on the Internet to be shorter and easier to understand. Also, her hands stayed free of newspaper ink.

"Women are busier than men," she said. "I don't love news enough to sit down and spend two hours with a newspaper like it's some great puzzle. Men get great gratification out of that. I'd rather read a romance novel."

Ms. Duarte represents a growing number of women who are embracing the new Internet journalism just as the news web sites are reaching out to them. Behind this quiet revolution are news editors who are bringing a more feminine sensibility to news outlets typically shaped by masculine tastes, habits and requirements.

Only a few years ago, feminizing news meant little more than personal advice columns and wedding annoucements. Today, feminizing news means making news stories smaller and more accessible, with large, polysyllabic words replaced by friendly, easy-to-understand pictures.

There are subtle touches too, like the addition of white space to web pages, and the careful selection of large, easy-to-read fonts.

The New York Times recently introduced the "Times Reader," an electronic version of its newspaper designed for women. Michel Marriott, an editor for the Times Reader, described it as being "aimed squarely at women," adding, "It is a newspaper for people who don't like the news. You can easily skim from story to story, or you can just read the headlines and skip reading the stories altogether." Marriott explained that many of the stories came from the print edition of the Times, a traditionally male-dominated publication, but that the Times Reader versions of stories were heavily edited for clarity. "We re-write each story to ensure that we do not exceed a fifth-grade vocabulary," Marriott said, "but the goal is for the reader to be able to make sense of the day's news by simply looking at the pictures and not having to read at all."

Focus group tested showed that men were turned off by the Times Reader, especially in how its simplified stories seemed to tell them what they thought already knew, said Marriott.

"We found that how people use the news is very different," he said. "For her, she wants the world to be instantly understandable."

bunny_rabid

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Muuuust resist being a smartass....aaaaaaaargh!!

Yeah right..like chicks dig small things .. digity-digity

LinuxGalore

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Hey Matt, Does Giz even have any female staff reporters that can speak to this first hand?

Windhawk

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @spinner

that was meant to be sarcastic, but i chose my words poorly. do note that my next sentence said:
In reality, I've met just as many, if not more, men who are tech inept, than I have women.

bobvilla

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Yes, that's very stereotypical, but I can see where they were coming from. I mean, how many of the girls you see who own mp3 players have an iPod? Pretty much all of them.

But that just means girls are more inclined to buy fashionable gadgets. That would be a more logical presumption. I think that items that are easy to use are what EVERYBODY looks out for. I mean, isn't that one of the characteristics of a smart shopper? Just because aesthetically pleasing items tend to be easy to use doesn't mean that girls focus more on the latter than the former. That's like saying that girls who buy gadgets buy them because they have rechargeable batteries. It's a coincidence, nothing more.

freeway8989

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I got your smaller, easier to use gadget...

itchytooth

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> @bobvilla: "Anyways, point is, most girls only play dumb around gadgets to get the attention of guys or because they don't feel like doing something themselves."

Uh, you're commenting on the stupidity of stereotypes, and, uh... What can you say? Idiots are idiots.

spinner

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Hear, hear.

I was offended, and I'm a guy. How dumb does the Times assume their readers are?

etmthree

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> She's got a weird face. And that's my two cents.

Aaron Martin-Colby

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> Smaller and easier to use devices for women! Asians rejoice!

daftrok

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> I am not a girl and I find that incredibly offensive. Clearly, a pink Zune is meant to be marketed to women but that's an asthetic, not a dumbing down. This kind of article does nothing but remind one of a bygone era where men grilled, women did the dishes and Donna Reed was a huge star (who was paid less than Lassie).

jedibugs

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> nice rack.
anyways, what's this about women leaving the household?

Seriously, I wouldn't have suspected this article coming from the NY Times, but I guess sexist idiots come in all shapes and sizes, and not just your stereotypical conservative southerners and Islamic fundamentalist...ya know, those 2 stereotypes have so much in common, it's not even funny!

Anyways, point is, most girls only play dumb around gadgets to get the attention of guys or because they don't feel like doing something themselves.

In reality, I've met just as many, if not more, men who are tech inept, than I have women.

bobvilla

]]> <![CDATA[NY Times: Smaller, Easier to Use Gadgets Are Made for Women]]> As a chick - I call BS! Dumb punks...

Then again, I'm writing this on a macbook, and adore my tiny w810i, so maybe I'm not the ideal example of a chick who likes big and bulky gear.

Then again, I don't know that *anyone* does. Dumb reporter punks...

macstudent

]]>