This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
        If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
[log in to unmask] For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************

Abstract:

This study analyzed the sources and opinions presented in stories regarding
the 1998 vote to determine Puerto Rico's future status as a nation. Through
a content analysis of the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago
Tribune and Washington Post, the study discovered that diversity of sources
was much greater than diversity of opinions expressed by these sources.
Roughly 62.7% of all sources failed to express whether they supported
Puerto Rico's statehood or not.

The 51st State Debate:
An Analysis of How Four American Newspapers Covered the 1998 Vote to
Determine the Future Status of Puerto Rico

Introduction
        Sources serve many important functions for reporters: They provide tips
and story ideas; they have key information about how organizations work;
and their quips and quotes can enliven a story about a particularly dull
issue. However, the most important function of a source is the part he or
she plays in helping a reporter maintain objectivity. A journalist who
wishes to remain objective must trust sources to provide commentary about a
particular issue. The journalist cannot inject personal opinion into a
story; the sources must provide interpretation about why an issue is
important and what deserves to happen in the future. Therefore, to better
understand how objectivity is attained, it is necessary to examine the use
of sources and the range of viewpoints these sources represent.
        This study analyzed the sources and opinions presented in stories
regarding the 1998 vote to determine Puerto Rico's future status as a
nation. On December 14, 1998, Puerto Ricans voted for one of five options:
statehood, independence, continued commonwealth status, self-government
with a free association and a "none of the above" option. Surprisingly,
50.2% of the voters selected "none of the above." While it is impossible to
enforce a non-option, this choice ironically captures the essence of the
island's highly controversial vote. On the one hand, many Puerto Ricans
would like the full benefits of statehood (46.5% voted for this option),
but on the other hand, most of them are not quite sure how they feel about
the issue or, at least, are not ready to decide.

The issue is not a new one for Puerto Ricans; they've rejected statehood in
1952, 1967 and 1993 as well. The issue is not trivial either; Puerto Rican
terrorists supporting independence have expressed their views by robbing
banks, opening fire on the U.S. House of Representatives (1954), attempting
to assassinate U.S. President Truman (1950) and bombing an estimated 120
sites in New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. American
sentiments on the issue can be passionate as well; many argue that adding a
51st state that is less wealthy than the poorest state, Mississippi, could
cost the nation much (in Medicaid costs, for example), while not increasing
tax revenue by a similar amount.
The opinion of Puerto Ricans on this matter has historically followed a
predictable pattern. Therefore, this study proposed that data from a
content analysis of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times
and Chicago Tribune would provide not only information about how often
supporters of each option were quoted in print, but also how accurately the
distribution of opinions mirrored the real-life distribution.

Theoretical Background

        According to Leon V. Sigal, who has conducted some of the most important
work on the nature of sources, the sources selected by a journalist can
determine how objective a story is:
Objective reporting means avoiding as much as possible the overt intrusion
of the reporter's  personal values into a news story and minimizing
explicit interpretation in writing up the       story. … Above all, [reporters]
try to attribute the story, and especially any interpretation of what it
means, to sources. In matters of controversy, they attempt to balance
sources with conflicting perspectives, if not within a single story, then
from one story to the next as coverage continues over time.[1]
Given this definition of objectivity, the typical news story would be
expected to present the following: a) a variety of sources, b) who
represent a variety of opinions, which c) a journalist has balanced in
order to present to readers. Unfortunately, studies of news stories have
shown this is not always the case.
Sigal, among others, has conducted research that reveals government
officials are represented disproportionately in newspaper coverage. For
example, his 20-year study of almost 3,000 stories in the New York Times
and Washington Post revealed government officials represented more than 75%
of all sources.[2] Studies revisiting Sigal's work have documented a
similar bias,[3] and Herbert Gans also found an overrepresentation of
government officials and other expert sources — whom he dubbed the "Knowns"
— in newsmagazines and television newscasts.[4] Of course, some types of
stories — such as enterprise stories — require a greater variety of
sources.[5] However, the bias toward government officials has been
documented in studies of the media overall as well as the coverage of
particular issues.[6] Apparently, journalists interpret the task of
gathering a wide variety of news sources as the task of gathering as wide a
variety of government sources as possible.
How does this lack of variety affect the range of opinions presented in a
story? This is an important question that drives research about sources.
While it greatly matters whether or not journalists quote "Unknowns" as
often as "Knowns," what matters even more is whether or not these "Knowns"
elected or appointed to speak for their constituents represent the full
range of opinions that exist regarding important issues.
While many studies count the types of sources included in news stories,
fewer attempt to quantify the diversity of the viewpoints they represent.
One such study, by Voakes, et. al., discovered that source diversity and
content diversity, contrary to popular belief, are not necessarily
correlated.[7] Stories with little source diversity — such as those that
quote mostly government officials — exhibit content diversity when the
sources represent a variety of opinions. Likewise, stories with great
source diversity might lack content diversity if all those quoted within
the story still represent a similar opinion.
In a qualitative essay regarding content diversity, James W. Carey notes
that journalists feel more comfortable naming names than providing
interpretation and opinion regarding issues: "American journalism always
begins from the question of 'who,' " he says. "The primary subject of
journalism is people — what they say and do."[8] As journalists search for
the perfect spokesperson for a particular cause, they oversimplify issues:
Because news is mainly about the doings and sayings of individuals, why is
usually answered by identifying the motives of those individuals. Why tells
us why someone did something.  … This overreliance on motive explanations
is a pervasive weakness of American journalism. Motive explanations are too
easy. It takes time, effort, and substantial knowledge to find a cause,
whereas motives are available for a phone call.[9]
One does not have to search far to find examples of coverage that lacks an
explanation of causes. Lasorsa and Reese's study of sources regarding the
1987 Wall Street stock market crash revealed that four out of five sources
had no explanation for the causes of this historic event. Only 2% of the
sources discussed more than one possible reason for the crash. [10]
Given this discussion, this study explored the number of sources and their
opinions regarding Puerto Rico's future as a nation. The study used the
range of opinions as measure of content diversity and as a measure of the
amount of interpretation — or causes — provided by sources. Specifically,
this study explored the following research questions:
R1: What sources are present in stories regarding the vote to determine
Puerto Rico's future status?
R2: What range of opinions do these sources represent?

Method
This study examined the coverage that four elite U.S. newspapers — the New
York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune —
devoted to the 1998 vote by Puerto Ricans regarding the island's future
status. This issue was selected for several reasons. First, Puerto Rico's
status as a nation arouses strong opinions — passions, really — for most
Puerto Ricans living on the island and mainland. Objective newspaper
coverage of the issue would therefore be expected to tap into these strong
sentiments and present arguments for or against the many options available.
Second, the opinion regarding the future status of Puerto Rico is evenly
divided, and the division has been fairly constant during the lengthy
history of this debate. Previous votes (in 1952, 1967 and 1993) show that
roughly 39 to 46% of Puerto Ricans favor joining the United States as a
51st state, while 48 to 60% favor the current status as a commonwealth.
Roughly 4% would like the island to function as an independent nation.
Again, objective newspaper coverage of this issue would be expected to
reflect these opinions.
The analysis examined a time period from January 1997 to March 2000, and
this period coincided with the January 1997 inauguration of Puerto Rican
Gov. Pedro J. Rossello, a key advocate for statehood. During his first
month in office, Rossello delivered a speech about statehood, which marked
the beginning of his campaign for a vote on the issue. Coverage tapered off
in the year following the December 1998 vote, and in March 2000, Rep. Jose
Serrano (D-Bronx) introduced a new bill calling for another vote in Puerto
Rico. Though this bill received little press coverage and failed to pass,
it heralds the end of one voting cycle and the beginning of another.
All stories  — including Op-Ed columns and editorials — regarding the issue
were coded, so this study examined a census and not a sample. Stories fit
the criteria for coding if they mentioned both "Puerto Rico" and either the
words "statehood" or "independence." (A search for "Puerto Rico" and
"commonwealth" revealed no additional stories.) News briefs shorter than
two sentences were not coded.
Coding involved the counting of sources within a series of categories
developed for this study:
1) U.S. national government, for individuals elected or appointed to the
federal government; as well as spokesmen for these government officials and
former presidents;
2) U.S. state and local government, for those elected, appointed or
representing state and local government;
3) Puerto Rican government, for the Puerto Rican officeholders and the
nonvoting Puerto Rican representative in Congress, Carlos Romero Barcelo;
4) U.S. business, for individuals owning a U.S.-based business mentioned by
name or representing business coalitions or groups;
5) Puerto Rican business, for those owning a Puerto Rican-based business
mentioned by name or representing business coalitions or groups;
6) U.S. political party or group, for those holding leadership positions in
the Democratic or Republican parties;
7) Puerto Rican political party or group, for those involved in political
parties or organized groups advocating a specific status for Puerto Rico,
such as the Puerto Rican Independence Party;
8) U.S. resident, for those — Puerto Rican or otherwise — who live in the
United States;
9) Puerto Rican resident, for those who live in Puerto Rico, and
10) Other, for written documents quoted and individuals who do not clearly
fall into any of the above categories.
        Although sources are traditionally defined as those who provide key
information for a story, this analysis defined sources as all those
individuals mentioned in a story by their proper name. Journalists strive
to keep stories as simple as possible; when they include individuals in a
story it is because they represent an important element within an issue.
For the purposes of this study, these relationships were as important as
who actually spoke in quotes.
Each source's opinion regarding the five options on the ballot was coded.
This was done based on the source's actual words within an article or on
designators identifying the source as an advocate or critic of a particular
option on the ballot. Therefore, coders could identify each source as
having one of eleven opinions: pro-statehood, pro-commonwealth,
pro-independence, pro-free association, or pro-"none of the above";
anti-statehood, anti-commonwealth, anti-independence, anti-free
association, or anti-"none of the above"; and no opinion. Also, the coding
noted whether the source was quoted directly or not.
The author and two graduate students studying communications at a state
university tested the coding system's intercoder reliability. Intercoder
reliability for this study, based on percentage of agreement, ranged from a
low of 78.5% for the total count per story of "U.S. Local and State
Government Sources;" to 96.3% for the category determining each source's
opinion; to 98.5% for the numeric count of "Total Sources" in a story; and
100% for the newspaper and date of the article. Overall intercoder
reliability was 94%.

Results
        A total 544 sources were found in 80 stories in the four newspapers coded.
The average number of sources varied per newspaper; the New York Times had
a mean of 7.25 sources per story, while the Washington Post had a mean of
5. The Los Angeles Times contributed only four stories to the analysis, but
its mean number of sources per story was 10.25. The Chicago Tribune had a
mean of 8.75. The total mean was 6.83.
        All four newspapers relied heavily on government officials as sources. The
Washington Post had the highest percentage of government officials in its
stories, with 68.4% or 95 out of a total 139 sources. The Chicago Tribune
relied on these sources the least, with 47.4% of its sources belonging to
the category of government officials. This newspaper featured a greater
number of U.S. and Puerto Rican residents, who accounted for 26.3% of its
total sources. Similar to the Washington Post, the New York Times and the
Los Angeles Times relied on government officials as sources most often,
with figures of 53.2% and 58.5% respectively. U.S. government officials
were three, four and five times more likely to be mentioned than Puerto
Rican sources, depending on the newspaper. See table 1.
Business sources were seldom quoted; figures active within U.S. political
parties seldom appeared in stories. Newspapers instead relied on Puerto
Rican political leaders as sources, in addition to the official government
sources. This category included those active within the independence,
statehood and commonwealth movements, as well as key leaders of the various
political parties in Puerto Rico, though it did not include any elected
officials. In the New York Times, these individuals accounted for 23.8% of
all sources.
        The study revealed few sources were described as favoring one status —
statehood, independence, the commonwealth or free association — over
another. A total 214 U.S. government sources failed to ally themselves with
any of these options. Eight favored statehood, six favored the commonwealth
and three favored independence. Of the Puerto Rican government sources, 28%
were presented without an opinion. The majority (58.5% of all Puerto Rican
government sources) were portrayed as favoring statehood, while eight
(12.3%) favored the commonwealth. The independence movement was usually
represented by members of the various parties supporting independence (the
Puerto Rican Independence Party) or the radical members of the Fuerzas
Armadas de Liberacion Nacional (FALN), which committed violent protest acts
in the United States during the 1970s. A total 81 individuals allied with
the independence cause were mentioned. See table 2.
        Overall, the study found that 12.3% of all sources had ties to the
statehood movement or voiced pro-statehood opinions; 16.5% had ties to the
independence movement or voiced pro-independence opinions; 4.8% had ties to
the commonwealth movement or voiced pro-commonwealth opinions; and 6274%
had no ties to a particular movement or opinions favoring or opposing the
five options on the ballot. A figure of  3.7% represented all those who
favored free association, the "none of the above" option on the ballot or
opposed the five options on the ballot.
        An analysis of individuals directly quoted in the articles revealed an
even greater lack of opinions. Only 13.5% of sources were quoted as
favoring the three most popular options according to previous votes:
statehood, commonwealth and independence. Here statehood garnered 8% of all
sources, while the commonwealth was represented by 4% and independence was
touted by 1.5%. A total 299 individuals, or 54.9% of all sources, were not
quoted at all. U.S. government sources were more than twice as likely to
speak than Puerto Rican government sources (95 versus 40 quoted), but
Puerto Rican sources were more often quoted as advocating a particular
future for the island. Puerto Rican residents were quoted more often than
their U.S. counterparts, and were also more likely to express an opinion
regarding their homeland's future. Still, only 3.1% of all sources were
Puerto Rican residents with an opinion to share.

Discussion

        This study asked two questions: What type of sources are present in
stories regarding the vote to determine Puerto Rico's future status; and
what range of opinions do these sources represent? Data about the type of
sources represented revealed that for this issue, journalists relied on the
usual suspects — government officials — for their quotes and information.
This supports previous research. However, the government officials did not
account for three-fourths of the sources, as some studies have shown. The
mix of sources included many members of Puerto Rican groups and U.S. and
Puerto Rican residents alike. The New York Times and Chicago Tribune should
be commended for including more Puerto Rican residents than the Washington
Post and Los Angeles Times as their sources.
        However, the representation of opinions in the stories did not match the
actual distribution. During the 1993 vote on this issue, Puerto Ricans
supported statehood with 46% of their votes, while 48% supported the
commonwealth and 4% supported independence. The 1998 vote resulted in a
50.2% win for "none of the above," largely due to the fact that
commonwealth supporters boycotted the vote and promoted this option in
protest. Statehood garnered 40.6% of the vote, while independence received
2.5%. The commonwealth and free association options received less than 1%
of the vote. In the coverage examined here, individuals representing
independence were represented most often (as seen on table 2), and
statehood supporters were quoted most (as on table 3). The commonwealth
lacked appropriate representation, as it should have been presented as an
option as popular as statehood.
        There are two reasons that could explain why newspapers would exhibit this
bias. First, research shows that journalists writing about colonies tend to
present them as nations that cannot govern themselves.[11] For this reason,
the statehood option would seem particularly appealing to journalists; that
the Puerto Ricans would want to join the union as a 51st state is a given
for many.  Secondly, unusual people and events lend themselves to colorful
and entertaining stories. Therefore, it is logical that the radical
independence movement would gather the attention of journalists looking for
a dramatic story. For this reason, the independence movement accounted for
more sources overall.
        The most significant finding for this story, however, is the lack of
opinion or explanation for the events that unfolded. It seems surprising
that Congress could engage in a debate regarding the possibility of a 51st
state, but fail to debate the pros and cons of admitting this state to the
union. The president seldom voiced an opinion on the issue, and Rep. Don
Young (R-Alaska), who introduced a bill that would have given full
congressional support to the Puerto Rican vote, was not once quoted as
explaining why he did this. Even the Puerto Rican residents seemed at a
loss to explain what they expected to vote for and why. The Chicago
Tribune, which devoted the largest percentage of its sources to Puerto
Rican residents, did not divulge any of these sources' opinions on the
issue. They commented on other issues relating to the vote or expressed
ambiguity of some sort. This finding is even more surprising given that
this study coded for 10 possible opinions. Looking at the stories as a
whole, it becomes obvious that the U.S. media did a poor job of explaining
the cause of this vote.
Also, the U.S. media was unprepared for the result of the vote: As stated
earlier, "none of the above" won the 1998 vote, and this study revealed
only five individuals (or .9% of all sources) spoke up in favor of this
option. There was little commentary offered following the vote as to why
this option won and how this would affect Puerto Rico in the future. Would
they hold another vote in years to come? How did U.S. Congress react to the
confusing message the "none of the above" victory delivered? This too is a
mystery.
Taking Sigal's definition of objectivity into consideration, it is doubtful
the stories examined in this study pass the test for objectivity. It is
true; the journalists seldom injected personal opinions into their
coverage. However, their stories failed to present any personal opinions
whatsoever. This seems to be a rather dull way to cover the news and an
inadequate way to explain not only the motives of individuals, but also the
causes of larger social movements and political occurrences.
Further research should focus on a larger sample, gathering articles from
more newspapers throughout the United States. A comparison could be made
between the newspaper coverage of the issue in cities with a high Puerto
Rican population (such as Chicago) and other metropolitan areas with
smaller Puerto Rican populations. A content analysis of the coverage given
the issue by Puerto Rican newspapers would add much to the discussion, as
would a study of coverage of earlier votes in both the Puerto Rican and
U.S. press. Should Puerto Ricans vote again on the matter in the future,
these studies would provide an excellent base for studying how coverage of
the vote has changed over time.













Table 1. Percentage of sources used in all articles written about Puerto
Rican statehood during
January 1997 through March 2000 for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times,
Washington Post
and Chicago Tribune
NYT
WP
LAT
CT
Total
%
%
%
%
%
Government
U.S.
42
54.7
51.2
33.7
44.5
[113]
[76]
[21]
[32]
[242]
P.R.
11.2
13.7
7.3
13.7
11.9
[30]
[19]
[3]
[13]
[65]
Business
U.S.
0
0.7
0
2.1
0.6
[0]
[1]
[0]
[2]
[3]
P.R.
0
0.7
0
1.1
0.4
[0]
[1]
[0]
[1]
[2]
Political Party
U.S.
1.5
2.2
0
0
1.3
[4]
[3]
[0]
[0]
[7]
P.R.
23.8
10.1
17.1
17.9
18.8
[64]
[14]
[7]
[102]
[102]
Other resident
U.S.
8.2
3.6
2.4
11.6
7.2
[22]
[5]
[1]
[11]
[39]
P.R.
8.9
8.6
9.8
14.7
9.9
[24]
[12]
[4]
[14]
[54]
Other
4.5
5.8
12.2
5.3
5.5
[12]
[8]
[5]
[5]
[30]
Total
100
100
100
100
100
[269]
[139]
[41]
[95]
[544]
Note: Figures in brackets are base Ns for the adjacent percentages. Total N
= 544.






Table 2. Opinion of sources in articles about Puerto Rican statehood in the
New York Times
Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune during January 1997
through March 2000
Pro
Pro
Pro
Statehood
Independence
Commonwealth
Other
No Opinion
Total
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Government
U.S.
3.3
1.2
2.5
4.5
88.4
100
[8]
[3]
[6]
[11]
[214]
[242]
P.R.
58.5
1.5
12.3
0
27.7
100
[38]
[1]
[8]
[0]
[18]
[65]
Business
U.S.
0
33.3
33.3
0
33.3
100
[0]
[1]
[1]
[0]
[1]
[3]
P.R.
0
0
0
0
100
100
[0]
[0]
[0]
[0]
[2]
[2]
Political Party
U.S.
0
0
0
0
100
100
[0]
[0]
[0]
[0]
[7]
[7]
P.R.
5.9
79.4
6
3.9
4.9
100
[6]
[81]
[6]
[4]
[5]
[102]
Other resident
U.S.
2.6
5.1
2.6
2.6
87.2
100
[1]
[2]
[1]
[1]
[34]
[39]
P.R.
18.5
3.7
7.4
5.6
64.8
100
[10]
[2]
[4]
[3]
[35]
[54]
Other
13.3
0
0
3.3
83.3
100
[4]
[0]
[0]
[1]
[25]
[30]
Total*
12.3
16.5
4.8
3.7
62.7
100
[67]
[90]
[26]
[20]
[341]
[544]
Note: Figures in brackets are base Ns for the adjacent percentages. Total N
= 544.
*This total shows the percentage representing each opinion as compared to
the total 544 sources.



Table 3. Use of quotes by sources in articles about Puerto Rican statehood
in the New
York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune during
January
1997 through March 2000
Pro
Pro
Pro
Pro
Anti
Anti
Anti
Other/
State
Ind.
Comm.
None
State.
Ind.
Comm.
None
     N
     N
     N
     N
     N
     N
     N
     N
Government
U.S.
3
2
3
0
4
1
4
77
P.R.
25
1
7
0
0
0
0
7
Business
U.S.
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
P.R.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Political Party
U.S.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
P.R.
3
0
6
2
1
0
0
5
Other resident
U.S.
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
20
P.R.
8
2
4
3
0
0
0
25
Other
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
Total
44
8
22
5
5
1
5
155
Percentage*
8%
1.50%
4%
1.80%
1.80%
0.36%
1.80%
28.50%
*This percentage is based on the total 544 sources.

[1]  Leon V. Sigal, "Sources Make the News," in Reading the News, ed.
Robert Karl Manoff and Michael Schudson (New York: Pantheon, 1986), 15.
[2]  Leon V. Sigal, Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics
of Newsmaking (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1973).
[3]  Jane Delano Brown, Carl R. Bybee, Stanley T. Wearden, and Dulcie
Murdock Straughan, "Invisible Power: Newspaper News Sources and Limits of
Diversity," Journalism Quarterly 64 (Spring 1987): 45-54.
[4]  Herbert J. Gans, Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS, Evening News,
NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time (Pantheon: New York, 1979).
[5]  Kathleen Hansen, "Source Diversity and Newspaper Enterprise
Journalism," Journalism Quarterly 68 (Fall 1991): 474-482.
[6]  Dan Berkowitz and Douglas Beach, "News Sources and News Context; The
Effect of Routine News, Conflict and Proximity," Journalism Quarterly 70
(Spring 1993): 4-12; Edie N. Goldenberg, Making the Papers (Lexington,
Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1975); Shannon E. Martin, "Proximity of Event as
a Factor in Selection of News Sources," Journalism Quarterly 64
(Summer/Autumn 1987): 508-13; Sandra H. Dickson, "Press and U.S. Policy
Toward Nicaragua, 1983-1987: A Study of the New York Times and Washington
Post," Journalism Quarterly 69 (Fall 1992) 562-71; Dominic L. Lasorsa, and
Stephen D. Reese, "News Source Use in the Crash of 1987: A Study of Four
National Media," Journalism Quarterly 67 (Spring 1990): 60-71.
[7]  Paul S. Voakes, Jack Kapfer, David Kurpius, and David Shano-Yeon
Chern, "Diversity in the News: A Conceptual and Methodological Framework,"
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73 (Autumn 1996): 582-593.
[8]  James W. Carey, "The Dark Continent of American Journalism," in
Reading the News, ed. Robert Karl Manoff and Michael Schudson (New York:
Pantheon, 1986), 180.
[9]  Carey, 180.
[10]  Lasorsa and Reese, 65.
[11]  Ilia Rodriguez, "News Reporting and Colonial Discourse: The
Representation of Puerto Ricans in U.S. Press Coverage of the
Spanish-American War," Howard Journal of Communication 9 (1998): 283-301.
















Submitted for:
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Minorities and Communication Division



"The 51st State Debate:
An Analysis of How Four American Newspapers Covered the 1998 Vote to
Determine the Future Status of Puerto Rico"


Mariel Betancourt-Beil
Ohio University
186 Mill Street, Apartment D-8
Athens, OH 45701
(740) 592-3837
[log in to unmask]



AV Need: Overhead Projector