October 27, 2011
— rdbrewer On the New York Times, Jay Rosen, and Clay Shirky.
Rosen and Shirkey are professors of journalism at New York University. O'Keefe made what appears to be an undercover video of a classroom setting. Rosen and Shirky are openly discussing the New York Times strategy to legitimize President Obama during the 2008 campaign, their strategy to help Occupy Wall Street, tax loopholes for NPR, their unwillingness to cover Michelle Bachmann, and a strategy to generate revenue for the Times that involves disparaging conservatives.
The most striking thing about this is the lack of any ethical consideration whatsoever. And the hubris.
Lot of Good Stuff In Here... [ace]: Clay Shirky discusses the issue of bias in coverage, and how it's done.
Regarding Obama in 2006 and 2007, he notes -- at this point in time, at least -- there really was no very credible reason to cover Obama seriously. He was a little-known very inexperienced freshman Senator. And black. The odds of him becoming President were less than 100:1.
And yet the Times realized (correctly) that he could be a viable candidate. But that itself is not supposed to be news; that is, the Times can't "create the news" with a headline like:
Thirty Out of Thirty-Two New York Times Editors Agree: Obama Would Be A Good Democratic Candidate
Now that's actually what they want to say. That is, in fact, the news: that a major influence-leading liberal news organization is impressed by a liberal politician (and so of course will be giving him favorable coverage in the future).
But they can't say that, because supposedly they're not liberal (wink) and because they are supposed to report the news made by others, not report the "news" of their own beliefs and opinions.
So what do they do? They begin covering stuff like Obama Girl, noting the cultural phenomenon of Barack Obama (which wasn't really a phenomenon when they began treating it as such). Without expressly running a story with the headline, Reliably Left-Liberal News Organization Has Decided To Give Barack Obama Favorable Coverage Because They Like Him, that was in fact what was going on, as evidenced by their choice to elevate a little-known freshman Senator into Someone You The Reader Should Be Taking Seriously Because All These Smart People (Not Us!) Are Taking Him Seriously.
It's an interesting observation by Shirky, and undoubtedly true.
Later in the video he discusses the opposite of that -- the Times' decision to not bless Michele Bachmann with Serious Candidate Coverage.
I can't say I disagree with their opinion on that, but then, I'm an opinion writer. I can say "She's not serious." The NYT is supposed to not show that sort of editorial bias in its straight news stories.
At 7:27 begins the most damning stuff. Among the statements (admissions contrary to evidence) Shirky makes are:
1. Most people can't tell their hometown newspaper is super liberal because 95% of the country has only one hometown newspaper and ergo have no basis for comparison. (He seems about 50 years behind the Times on this -- most people have FoxNews now.)
2. The media's business model relies upon the deception that they are unbiased. So while they freely admit their liberal biases among "other elites," they will not admit this to the public. Because (per admission 1), I think he means that the sales pitch of the media -- we give it to you straight and unbiased -- is in fact still fairly effective, due to the prevalence of one-newspaper towns, and thus media liberals would be diminishing their influence and their business reach by confessing this.
He goes on to crow how everyone in the room are all "elites," to which NYU professor of "journalism" Jay Rosen jokes, "We are the one percent!"
But that's a joke like many things are jokes -- a difficult, tendentious admission is confessed to in a jokey format, to lessen the impact.
Good video. Shirky adds a little something to my understanding of bias with his explanation of how the NYT communicated what shied away from communicating expressly (i.e., "We at the NYT are gay for Obama!!!").
Although Shirky is himself a liberal, and a big NYT booster, he's adept at explaining how media bias is actually practiced.
And, as they say in the law, this is admissible in court as Statements Against Interest.
(They actually sit around and refer to themselves and their readers as elites. Good grief. Bask in the warm rays of glorious self-regard, dude.)
Thanks to guest blogger Jammie Wearing Fool for the tip.
Follow me on Twitter.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
11:06 AM
| Comments (146)
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 27, 2011 11:09 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Captain Renault at October 27, 2011 11:10 AM (O6q63)
Posted by: somebody else, not me at October 27, 2011 11:11 AM (7EV/g)
I say this many times, you have no idea how stupid most of your professors are.
Oh, I left a university teaching post 5 years ago. I know EXACTLY how stupid they are.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 27, 2011 11:12 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Cherry pi at October 27, 2011 11:12 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: somebody else, not me at October 27, 2011 03:11 PM (7EV/g)
If I were to have a full-frontal lobotomy...
...the piece of my brain that they take out...
...could be left in the sun for a week...
...partially eaten by squirrels...
...could still get a Ph.D. in journalism.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:13 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Shtetl G at October 27, 2011 03:12 PM (VGIcl)
Yes, can't we fold the journalism department into the department of buggy whip engineering.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:13 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:14 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Capt. Renault at October 27, 2011 11:14 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:15 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: 18-1 at October 27, 2011 11:15 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Avi at October 27, 2011 11:15 AM (Gx3Fe)
Posted by: Captain Renault at October 27, 2011 03:10 PM (O6q63)
Crap. I though if I hit it by # 25, nobody would have beat me to it.
Posted by: Capt. Renault at October 27, 2011 11:15 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at October 27, 2011 11:17 AM (1+CnU)
Posted by: nickless at October 27, 2011 11:17 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Beckster at October 27, 2011 11:18 AM (VjJAc)
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 27, 2011 11:18 AM (I9fXA)
Every single point of Obama's 160 IQ is channeled into focus on jobs, jobs, jobs.
Oh wait, no it isn't.
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 27, 2011 11:18 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: The New York Times at October 27, 2011 11:18 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: AMartel at October 27, 2011 11:19 AM (1Bqk7)
Crap. I though if I hit it by # 25, nobody would have beat me to it.
Posted by: Capt. Renault at October 27, 2011 03:15 PM
Don't sweat it.
Posted by: Claude Raines at October 27, 2011 11:21 AM (O6q63)
BS I say. Even potholes - yes potholes - are political, if your govt doesn't have enough money to fix them because they pissed it away on toys and new planning office hires.
Posted by: jeanne! at October 27, 2011 11:21 AM (GdalM)
I find interesting his comments re Bachman saying crazy things and being unelectable, yet treated as a viable candidate by NYT, but then also saying the NYT's minimal coverage of Obama (who had his share of crazy statements & associations) helped Obama's campaign.
I don't know if this is just willful blindness to the popular opinion strategy at play, or if some of the context was lost explaining exactly how the NYT helped drive the unelectable (100-1) candidate on the left to the WH by sparing coverage.
That he seems perplexed at the coverage of Bachman suggests to me that he himself is a victim of the propaganda. The NYT pushing an unelectable candidate on the right allows the best possible outcome for their candidate of choice on the left.
Surprises me that he doesn't get that strategy.
Second: I'm left a little concerned about the overall missing context. O'Keefe has come through time and again after the fact with filling in the context the left claims was left out and changes things, but I can imagine a whole lot of context that would make a lot of this seem pretty innocuous.
Posted by: krakatoa at October 27, 2011 11:22 AM (bbJJG)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 27, 2011 11:22 AM (f9c2L)
No complaints here.
Posted by: Kal Penn at October 27, 2011 11:22 AM (7BU4a)
And that is why the Dems are working so damn hard to get some type of fairness doctrine back which is what FDR used to shutdown the opposition press. They are coming up with multiple programs all different names, but all designed to control these mediums.
But that only happens in 3rd world dictatorships, right?
Posted by: Vic at October 27, 2011 11:23 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Bob Saget at October 27, 2011 11:24 AM (SDkq3)
By the way, this bothers the hell out of me.
He was nominated totally because and elected partially because he is black.
It's a huge net benefit and I don't see any evidence whatsoever that his race hurt him with anyone. Indeed, it only helps him.
It is only in the noblesse oblige condescending Left that they can't get rid of the meme that black candidates are less electable. They are more electable, by leaps and bounds more electable.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:25 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 27, 2011 11:25 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 27, 2011 11:26 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 27, 2011 11:26 AM (tqwMN)
Translated:
"DO, you f!cker. WHATEVER, you f!ck f!ck f!cker. YOU WANT, f!ckity f!ck f!ck f!cker f!ck. TO DO, dammit f!cking f!ck f!cker, you f!cker."
Posted by: rdbrewer at October 27, 2011 11:27 AM (1DJgI)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 27, 2011 11:27 AM (OZfNl)
Dang. I may actually have to start a blog. I wouldn't be very good at it, and it would mostly point to other sites, but we need as many voices (Insty's proverbial "Army of Davids") as possible.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 27, 2011 11:27 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Do I know you? at October 27, 2011 11:27 AM (OlN4e)
jayrosen_nyu Jay Rosen
I'm at O'Hare now, switching planes. Later today I will have a statement about James O'Keefe's attempted "sting" against me and Clay Shirky.
2 hours ago
"BRB - defecting to Cuba..."
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 27, 2011 11:27 AM (oBrVT)
And his wife. Oh boy, we'll sell the shit out of her!
Michelle is beautiful, we'll say.
Posted by: New York Times at October 27, 2011 03:25 PM (sqkOB)
That one they couldn't sell. You got a few weeks of the Empress' New Clothes schtick, but chicks know fashion.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:27 AM (T0NGe)
I refuse to play Monopoly because my brother cheated every single time we played when we were kids. WTF? He had to cheat to beat an 8 year old?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 27, 2011 11:28 AM (8y9MW)
Is it ok to say these guys are total assholes?
I think it is.
In fact, I'm sure they'd get a gleam in their eyes were they to be called assholes, because assholes like these assholes, get thrills on pissing people off and being all nasty, and catty and shit.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Racism Identifier at October 27, 2011 11:29 AM (tcSZb)
I'm at O'Hare now, switching planes. Later today I will have a statement about James O'Keefe's attempted "sting" against me and Clay Shirky.
The forecast is...whining, with a 90% chance of blaming the messenger.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:29 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 27, 2011 11:29 AM (I9fXA)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at October 27, 2011 11:29 AM (ndlFj)
Posted by: tasker at October 27, 2011 11:29 AM (rJVPU)
What's this?
Rosen is gearing up for his "I was taken out of context" piece?
Those words I said? Yeah, that's not what I meant.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 27, 2011 11:30 AM (sqkOB)
Not true. There are multiple internet sites devoted to fans of Moochelle's fashion and style (mrs-o.com being the most famous) and they're deadly serious.
Posted by: Ian S. at October 27, 2011 11:31 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: tasker at October 27, 2011 11:31 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 27, 2011 11:31 AM (y0bJs)
Posted by: Lawrence of the Labia at October 27, 2011 11:32 AM (bdGWv)
I've made this point point before.... but its worth repeating.
It is not bias if it's a deliberate and conscious action.
Posted by: fixerupper at October 27, 2011 11:32 AM (C8hzL)
And his wife. Oh boy, we'll sell the shit out of her!
Michelle is beautiful, we'll say.
Posted by: New York Times at October 27, 2011 03:25 PM (sqkOB)
------
"I am Camelot...with a tan" ~Michelle in New Yorker article (iirc)
I wonder who told her to say that.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 27, 2011 11:32 AM (esyI3)
I cheated all the time when I was a kid if I could get away with it. The 'rents turned that around quickly though -- didn't want me to grow up to be little Democrat.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 27, 2011 11:33 AM (OZfNl)
Monopoly? Yeah, you do. There is strategy to that game, but it only shifts the needle a little in your favor, not a lot like some games.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at October 27, 2011 11:33 AM (bjRNS)
He was 12. The dice were never that kind to me.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 27, 2011 11:34 AM (8y9MW)
Rosen runs a blog called Pressthink, from which I was banned for talking about, among other things, media bias.
Worth a look.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 27, 2011 11:36 AM (iPOrH)
Posted by: t-bird at October 27, 2011 11:36 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Drew in MO at October 27, 2011 11:36 AM (CAYt4)
74....It is not bias if it's a deliberate and conscious action.
That's right. It is out & out premeditated propaganda. .....'Bias' implies that it is unintentional.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 27, 2011 11:36 AM (esyI3)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 27, 2011 03:26 PM (tqwMN)
Conservative talk radio is still a very powerful medium.
Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 27, 2011 11:37 AM (y0bJs)
Regarding Obama in 2006 and 2007, he notes -- at this point in time, at least -- there really was no very credible reason to cover Obama seriously. He was a little-known very inexperienced freshman Senator. And black. The odds of him becoming President were less than 100:1.
Yes and no. As early as 2004, SCOAMF was already being force-fed to the Dem electorate, giving the keynote speech at the '04 DNC (keynote speeches being the traditional introduction to the party "heir apparent"). So in a sense, he was already "news" by '06.
It's not as much that the MFM pushed SCOAMF on the public as that they jumped onto the JugEars Bandwagon a couple of years after the DNC already put the pieces in place. They're NOT SMART ENOUGH to push a particular candidate unless the Dem intelligencia feeds them their news copy practically verbatim.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at October 27, 2011 11:37 AM (G+B5p)
Half of being an elite appears to be getting people to call you an elite and accept playing the game by the rules you set. Republican in general always seem far too eager to buy the liberal line whenever its presented.
I was watching some mad science show last night about genuine Carribean witch doctors the other night. Sounds pretty similar.
The theory being the help they get by doping people with psychadelic drugs, the primary power of the witch doctor to create zombies is the culture, namely, that the people believe witch doctors can turn them into zombies.
Posted by: Entropy at October 27, 2011 11:38 AM (XxXUI)
Am I the only who is reminded of PT Barnum's famous "This way to the Egress" ploy when reading about media manipulation? Give the audience something shiny and new, and they'll follow wherever you lead them.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 27, 2011 11:39 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Alex at October 27, 2011 11:40 AM (/yzYn)
Score 1: Acorn is a dirty cesspool of opportunists.
Score 2: NPR Is a liberal appendage to the Democrat party.
Score 3: Government entitlements are handed out knowingly to those who don't need it or legally qualify.
Score 4: NYT is just a liberal rag masquerading as a reputable news source.
James has a MO going now. Take stuff every conservative believes, really *knows*, but cannot definitively prove, and prove it.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 27, 2011 11:40 AM (0q2P7)
It is not bias if it's a deliberate and conscious action.
Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie...if you believe it.
Posted by: Matt at October 27, 2011 11:40 AM (90w0O)
Posted by: Alex at October 27, 2011 03:40 PM (/yzYn)
All those who are surprised, raise your hands.
...
Nobody? Okay then.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 27, 2011 11:41 AM (4df7R)
O'Donnell = crazy, Palin = crazy and on & on it goes, from our own side, even when we see what they're doing right before our eyes on tape. To me, that's way worse than anything I could see from these bastards, at least we know they're our enemies.
Posted by: jeannebodine at October 27, 2011 11:41 AM (iPWtH)
So Score 5 will be a video of Obama admitting he's a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure?
Posted by: Ian S. at October 27, 2011 11:42 AM (tqwMN)
It may be striking, but certainly not surprising.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at October 27, 2011 11:42 AM (1rHeD)
But as a Kos Kid moby, what do I know?
Posted by: Ed Anger at October 27, 2011 11:43 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Pat at October 27, 2011 11:43 AM (o9lEO)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 27, 2011 03:42 PM (tqwMN)
I think Score 5 will be video of Obama saying, "Yeah, when I told those people from the Brady camp that we're working on gun control under the table, I was totally referencing Fast & Furious."
So more or less the same thing, really.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 27, 2011 11:44 AM (4df7R)
It's not as much that the MFM pushed SCOAMF on the public as that they jumped onto the JugEars Bandwagon a couple of years after the DNC already put the pieces in place. They're NOT SMART ENOUGH to push a particular candidate unless the Dem intelligencia feeds them their news copy practically verbatim.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at October 27, 2011 03:37 PM (G+B5p)
That 2004 speech had my bullshit detector completely pegged. I knew that garbage was the type of stuff that the libs drench their pants over. And predictably it got over on the fucking rubes and he hasn't lived up to a goddamn word of it.
With the MFM it's a dead heat between lazy and stupid regarding what explains them.
Posted by: Captain Hate at October 27, 2011 11:45 AM (G6SvX)
Posted by: jeannebodine at October 27, 2011 03:41 PM (iPWtH)
This. Seems like the so-called uneducated rubes on the left aren't the only ones that fall for the NYT line of bullshit and character assassination.
Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 27, 2011 11:46 AM (y0bJs)
Rosen runs a blog called Pressthink, from which I was banned for talking about, among other things, media bias.
Worth a look.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 27, 2011 03:36 PM (iPOrH)
Anything like Journolist?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 27, 2011 11:46 AM (1Jaio)
Hear, hear!
Posted by: T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII at October 27, 2011 11:46 AM (tqwMN)
What these "elites" are forgetting is that one of their other darling's Bill Clinton changed the rules of engagement in Serbia by calling for the direct targeting of media outlets.
Before these folks bring about the collapse they believe will vault them into power they need to understand what these new rules mean to them.
Posted by: Scott J at October 27, 2011 11:47 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: Cherry pi at October 27, 2011 11:47 AM (OhYCU)
With the MFM it's a dead heat between lazy and stupid regarding what explains them.
Don't forget "consciously evil".
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at October 27, 2011 11:48 AM (G+B5p)
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 27, 2011 11:48 AM (I9fXA)
Posted by: Mike Devx at October 27, 2011 11:49 AM (dcpnd)
Posted by: tasker at October 27, 2011 11:50 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 27, 2011 11:50 AM (I9fXA)
Does this make people more or less inclined to believe the New York Times is not the unbiased paper of record it claims to be?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 27, 2011 11:51 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: nickless at October 27, 2011 11:52 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Typical #OWS Occu-Tard at October 27, 2011 11:53 AM (p/bp2)
Monopoly Bucks passed Dead Presidents in relative value some time in early 2009.
It is now obviously serious business and sometimes unfortunately, the only game in town.
Posted by: ontherocks at October 27, 2011 11:55 AM (HBqDo)
110
Not exactly. They talk about the press, the future, various issues. They might talk about, say, the coal mine collapse where the report was that the guys were okay when they weren't.
I would say they're concerned, on the blog anyway, about the press now and in the future. They don't like to hear the press loses credibility when they are seen as biased left, making stuff up.
Rosen calls those who claim press lib bias "culture warriors."
Liberal as hell, most of the commenters, and they think Bush is a moron, as is Palin and, afaik, they've never talked about, say, Biden's goofiness.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 27, 2011 11:57 AM (iPOrH)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 27, 2011 12:00 PM (jx2j9)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 27, 2011 12:01 PM (jx2j9)
This was a nice touch in the report:
Chavez went to jail, went directly to jail on a variety of charges, including aggravated battery on a household member with a deadly weapon and battery on a law enforcement officer.
Posted by: toby928© at October 27, 2011 12:08 PM (IfkGz)
Posted by: MayBee at October 27, 2011 12:20 PM (PLixr)
Posted by: James O'Keefe, always sinks the battleship at October 27, 2011 12:20 PM (p/bp2)
It would be real nice if "conservative" politcal bloggers were able to recognize when the narrative is being set and not fall for it. But, alas, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Did you know Steve Jobs was a jerk? Yeah. That's what I hear.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at October 27, 2011 12:22 PM (4zKCA)
Posted by: Mikey NTH at October 27, 2011 12:28 PM (hLRSq)
Is there is a downside to arguing with a liberal and calling him a fucking bald faced liar in front of 15 people?
I cant seem to find one.
Posted by: irongrampa at October 27, 2011 12:30 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: LGoPs at October 27, 2011 12:48 PM (+Uv5V)
Posted by: csm at October 27, 2011 12:53 PM (6MiMG)
Posted by: steevy at October 27, 2011 01:27 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at October 27, 2011 01:33 PM (+3fAP)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at October 27, 2011 01:50 PM (vahvH)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at October 27, 2011 02:09 PM (vahvH)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at October 27, 2011 02:19 PM (vahvH)
Posted by: Penny at October 27, 2011 04:55 PM (eFMsP)
He seems to worship someone so mentally retarded that he had to get a Ph.D. in journalism, which I think my shower curtain mold just earned. Congratulations to my shower curtain mold.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 05:30 PM (73tyQ)
2. Where does shirky say he is 'shirky'? See "NPR".
so whats your piggin FROINT? huh?
Posted by: Rex the Wonder Concern Troll at October 27, 2011 06:13 PM (fDGF1)
On one trip, we took Gore to the NY Times for a private meeting with the editorial staff, who advised him on his campaign coverage. We then went to CBS, where he sat with Dan Rather for a few hours and took advice from him.
Posted by: elliot at October 27, 2011 07:02 PM (vY/HY)
Posted by: rdbrewer at October 27, 2011 08:18 PM (1DJgI)
Posted by: doumaduo at October 28, 2011 01:26 AM (UTyvb)
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 28, 2011 04:59 AM (iPOrH)
Posted by: The Schwalbe : © at October 28, 2011 06:10 AM (UU0OF)
Posted by: Jay Rosen's Mother at October 28, 2011 11:37 AM (oVLxz)
Posted by: john at October 29, 2011 07:59 AM (9ySs0)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2692 seconds, 274 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
I say this many times, you have no idea how stupid most of your professors are.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 27, 2011 11:08 AM (T0NGe)