Prominent ‘Religion News Service’ Wire Service Found to Be Taking Funding From Atheist Mogul in Exchange for Coverage of ‘Freethinkers’ — Ethical?
- Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:57am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
- Religion News Service (RNS) has received $65,000 in funds (2011-2012) from the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, an atheist group
- Funding was granted to bolster RNS’s “coverage of freethinkers”
- Millionaire Todd Stiefel claims he has no editorial control over RNS coverage
- RNS’s editor-in-chief Kevin Eckstrom defends the gifts and says the outlet is seeking funding from other faith-based foundations as well
- Poynter’s Kelly McBride weighs in on the ethics surrounding the funding
Photo Credit: RNS
Religion News Service (RNS), a prominent non-profit news organization focused on faith, is facing some of the same financial constraints that have led to the demise of numerous traditional media outlets. As time goes on and revenue becomes tougher to generate, newsrooms like RNS find themselves looking for ways to bring in much-needed funds. One of the more controversial models that the group has embraced is accepting funds from special interest groups.
RELIGION NEWS SERVICE TAKING FUNDING FROM ATHEISTS
In the case of RNS, The Stiefel Freethought Foundation (SFF), a hub for the atheist movement, has given $65,000 over the past two years to help fund coverage of non-believers and the so-called “freethought” movement. The organization, run by atheist millionaire Todd Stiefel (read our extensive profile about him here), has a very clear goal of organizing atheists, while spreading and advancing non-belief.
An announcement on the SFF web site explains the purpose of an initial $50,000 gift in 2011. Under a section entitled “Accomplishments in 2011,” the site reads, “SFF donated $50,000 to Religion News Service to bolster its coverage of freethinkers with a series of news, investigations, feature stories and photos.”
A separate notation under 2012 accomplishments touts an additional $15,000 given to RNS “to support the second year of its increased coverage of freethinkers.” The SFF made it known that the first year of funding was successful, with RNS purportedly penning 41 stories about the atheist movement.
Photo Credit: Stiefel Freethought Foundation
There are a number of reasons why these gifts may cause controversy and angst, especially on the ethics front. Most mainstream and hard news-driven media outlets adhere to journalistic standards that, on the surface, would make this union suspect. While there are certainly biases to be accounted for, the overall notion is that general news outlets, at least in theory, are supposed to remain non-partisan and unaligned with slanted perspective and special interests.
While there’s no direct evidence that RNS violated these standards, taking money from a special interest group in the faith sphere causes one to wonder how rigorously — or honestly — the subject of atheism was explored. Furthermore, RNS is a wire service that numerous outlets (and big ones, at that) subscribe to. The stories that are written aren’t just published on the RNS web site; they make their way onto The Huffington Post, The Washington Post and other outlets that pay to publish them.
TODD STIEFEL EXPLAINS WHY HE FUNDS RNS
In an interview with TheBlaze, Stiefel discussed his foundation‘s gifts to RNS and said that there’s nothing that his group is doing that differs from what other religious groups currently engage in. While this may be the case, RNS has not yet received funding from any other special interest foundation or religious entity. Currently, the SFF is the only organization providing monies to the news group.
Stiefel reiterated that the purpose of the grants was to increase awareness of atheists and their increasingly-organized movement. He said that he plays no role in the ideological skew of the content.
Photo Credit: Todd Stiefel
“I have absolutely zero control over what they write, what they choose to write about, what goes in [the articles] — nothing,” he told TheBlaze. “Even some of the stories that have been written, I certainly– there have been some stories that weren’t positive about the freethought movement and certain aspects of it.” He also made note of two articles that RNS wrote about the atheist movement that were negative in nature. TheBlaze located one of these articles from July 2012 entitled, “Do Atheists Have a Sexual Harassment Problem?”
Screen shot of a RNS atheist-themed article (Photo Credit: RNS)
Among the more interesting elements of the relationship between the SFF and RNS is that the funding that was granted has allowed for a reporter — Kimberly Winston — to focus more diligently on the atheist movement. Winston, who has been working freelance with RNS for quite some time, is now able to write much more regularly on the subject for the outlet.
While Stiefel claims he’s free to pitch ideas, he says the RNS team rarely uses them. Additionally, Stiefel told TheBlaze that Winston rarely uses him as a source for her stories about atheism.
“If there’s anything I find a little frustrating, they err on the side of not covering things I do or things I’m involved with,” Stiefel said of RNS. “I have to accept that they kind of ignore the things I’m involved with – it’s less likely to be covered.”
Regardless of the fact that he doesn’t have editorial control and that he is sometimes not relied upon for original sourcing, Stiefel says that he plans to continue funding RNS. But he’s hoping that other secular groups will join him in footing the bill.
As for critics who take issue with the funding model that RNS has chosen to embrace with the SFF, the atheist leader has a question for them: If a Christian group were donating to RNS and receiving positive coverage as a result, what would your reaction be?
RNS EXPLAINS CONTROVERSIAL ATHEIST FUNDING MODEL
To better understand this arrangement, TheBlaze also spoke with RNS’s editor-in-chief Kevin Eckstrom. He explained the news organization’s path from being owned by a for-profit corporation (Advanced Publications) to becoming a non-profit organization back in July 2011. This transformation created some intriguing opportunities for the traditional news group. Funding, of course, was at the center of the decision (RNS is now part of the Religion Newswriters Foundation umbrella) to engage Stiefel’s foundation.
“Part of the reason [we became a non-profit] was to be able to solicit and accept donor support [and] foundation support both for general corporations and specific projects,” Eckstrom explained.
“It just happened, honestly, that The Stiefel Foundation was the first one that we got. Our development director had known Todd and had worked with him in her previous career,” he added.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Eckstrom explains that the relationship between RNS and the SFF commenced a few years ago when the Religion Newswriters Association (also an entity under the Religion Newswriters Foundation), also received a donation from Stiefel. The association, which brings together religion reporters from across America, puts together helpful briefs about various faith groups.
At the time, Stiefel donated to help the organization put together an atheism source guide (this is a separate entity and gift from the funds that have been given to RNS). This was the parent organization’s first contact with the SFF — one that led to the current coverage agreement between RNS and Stiefel.
Eckstrom says that it was never RNS’s intention to go after funding for atheism coverage. He also noted that the news organization is seeking out other grant proposals that would help bolster coverage of evangelicals, Muslims and other specific faiths and subjects. The SFF arrangement, Eckstrom claims, isn’t much different from what National Public Radio (NPR) does to bring in funds on a specific topic (read about NPR’s funding strategies here).
Naturally, many would worry about the connections that exist between Stiefel and RNS. Eckstrom mirrored the atheist leader in claiming that the two have very little contact, specifically when it comes to content.
“We have fairly limited contact with the Steifel Foundation by design,” he explained. “When we were first talking, we were very clear and we remain very clear that all editorial decisions would be up to us — that we would not take direction from anyone including the funders in regards to what we could or could not cover.”
The editor also says that Stiefel’s goal in providing the funding was for “unbelievers to be treated with the same degree of coverage as believers.” That being said, Eckstrom reiterates that there are “firewalls” setup to prevent editorial influence from Stiefel and his foundation.
RESPONDING TO CRITICS’ CONCERNS
In his interview with TheBlaze, Eckstrom also voiced understanding of critics’ concerns that this arrangement appears to be a form of directly paying for coverage.
“I understand those concerns and I’m very sensitive to them and we have tried to think through this as clearly as we can,” he admits. “Yes, it’s different from the traditional models that journalism has operated under…those models, are in many ways, not sustainable anymore.”
Eckstrom also notes that this form of journalism does, indeed, raise more ethical questions than traditional forms would. That being said, he reiterates his hope that other faiths, too, will soon be represented by funders. Despite these issues, he overwhelmingly defends the model and, more specifically, Stiefel’s funding of RNS.
Todd Stiefel (Image Credit: Todd Stiefel)
“You could make the argument that it‘s not all that different from a traditional newspaper that takes ads from Sally and Joe’s breakfast restaurant and then has to do [a story on] charges of salmonella poisoning there,” Eckstrom says.
While this is certainly valid, TheBlaze did explore how fervently RNS made Stiefel’s funding known to readers. A search conducted on the organization‘s web site didn’t show any notation that the $65,000 had been received by RNS. When asked about this, Eckstrom said that, over the past year, the outlet has gone through a major evolution in moving from a for-profit to a non-profit model.
“When we were getting off the ground, it was an absolute chaotic mess. We were moving offices, changing computer systems,” he said. “It was just sort of a gigantic whirlwind. I think this was one of the things that fell between the cracks — there was never a decision not to publicize.”
Eckstrom says that 80 to 90 percent of the atheism-themed stories on RNS come from Winston’s work (which is a direct result of the SFF funding), noting the relationship with Stiefel on the web site could be problematic.
Despite worries that RNS’s coverage could be biased to leave out negative coverage about atheists, Eckstrom — though sensitive to these fears — dismisses them. In the end, he claims that the outlet is committed to churning out “fair” and “balanced” coverage and that it “doesn’t take sides.”
“We don’t have a dog in any of these fights,” he says, referring to the faith world.
Certainly, RNS does a stellar job informing readers about the many attributes of the faith sphere. That being said — and this doesn’t just go for RNS — it’s perfectly natural to wonder whether negative coverage would lead a funder to pull its support. In the end, funding is something that can essentially be held over a group’s head and, subsequently, inadvertently impact coverage.
In the end, this is a consideration that is likely difficult for the outlet, which has proven itself committed to journalistic integrity, to balance.
Eckstrom did note that some of the criticism RNS may receive from this funding news could be rooted in the negative views that many have of atheism and atheists, in particular.
“Part of the reason why this particular one gets questions is because we’re dealing with atheist [movement],” he says. “I really question if we received a grant from a Presbyterian foundation, would people be asking the same questions?”
POYNTER WEIGHS IN ON THE CONTROVERSY
TheBlaze reached out to Kelly McBride of The Poynter Institute — a journalism ethics organization — to ask about the standards surrounding the relationship between RNS and the SFF. McBride explains that this model of accepting donations for content isn’t uncommon. However, she notes that this must be done with “total independence over what [the outlet can] do with the money.”
“Ethically, I think in a journalistic sense you can totally do that as long as you maintain complete editorial control over the product,” McBride explains. “So, you don’t want to get into a situation where your donor is suggesting news stories — [or] is suggesting sources.”
Photo Credit: Poynter
In the case of RNS, Stiefel did admit to suggesting stories and sources, but it was in a limited capacity that these suggestions were acted upon. When it comes to the ethics of covering the negative aspects that could be associated with a funder, McBride said that journalistic integrity should trump all else.
“As a journalism organization, you are only as good as the journalists who [are] running newsrooms,” she continues. “Real journalists will make the tough call — we will take the fundraising hit if it comes to that.”
Journalism is costly and, considering this, it’s not uncommon that foundations and groups with an agenda would provide funding to help prop up newsrooms, while also ensuring that specific subject matter gets coverage.
While RNS isn’t necessarily violating journalistic standards, on the transparency front, McBride notes that the outlet should probably be upfront that it’s receiving funds from the SFF. She says “it makes sense to be really transparent” and to create a place on the news group’s web site where its policies and funding information is available.
“The whole non-profit news world is really growing up before our eyes,” she says. “It doesn‘t surprise me that they haven’t thought through all the disclosure and transparency.”
What do you think? Should RNS — or any outlet for that matter — be taking funding from foundations with an agenda? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section, below.
–
RELATED:
- Exclusive: Atheist Movement‘s ’George Soros‘ Says Bible Has ’Moral’ & ‘Factual’ Flaws; Touts His Vision for Secularism
- Prominent Atheist Activist Answers Your Most Burning Questions About Faith & Secularism
- Atheist Activist Answers Your Questions About ‘Repulsive’ Bible Scriptures & the 10 Commandments
- Atheist Activist Answers Your Questions About Jesus Christ & the ‘Completely Unreliable’ New Testament
- Prominent Atheist Warns Against Taking Bible as ‘Absolute Moral Truth’ & Answers More of Your Questions
Comments (29)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 455 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 313 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 208 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
davecorkery
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:50pmLTEMP
Report Post »If you want to look forward to a story made up by men to keep you unafraid, (and controlled), more power to you. We look forward to every coming minute on this planet. Our atoms and molecules came from the earth, and they will someday return to it. We just don’t think giving money and time to humans (clerics) who promise you a closer seat to your deity is much of a good idea. I do appreciate that religions provide people with friendship and community, which are very important. If I happen to need a little hope sometimes, I just buy a lottery ticket. If I need a little pick me up, I phone my Mom (a christian, by the way, but I don’t hold it against her).
Rayblue
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:38pm“Stifle” Freethinker Foundation…
Report Post »Homonym triumph of the day.
48Straight
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:37pmFreethinking means free of religious thought, not freedom of thought. As with all liberal terms they usually mean the opposite of what they really are.
My brother leads one of these groups. You have to subscribe to a very narrow thought pattern to be a Freethinker or you will be excommunicated. Children are not given the option of even exploring a different religion or thought pattern. In fact each group has a leader or a preacher as religious folk would call him. Their congregation meets on a regular basis, take dues like in a church, have activities to gain parishioners and preaches to its church goers about how live their lives.
The only difference other than they disdain freedom of individual thought is that they think since there isnt any higher power or being over them, they personally are the god, and therefore they have the mandate to force others of all religions to be subservient to their commandments and thought.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:38pmYou’re either lying or your brother is in some kind of religious group. We have very lively discussions and nothing is forbidden. (Full disclosure: We have an open bar where we meet, so that might account for the lively. You guys have wine, so do we. And rye, vodka, spritzers and plenty of pilsner) Some neo-atheist groups have a hard time letting go of the indoctrination and brainwashing techniques we received during our forced attendance at at religious services when we were too young to realize the damage it was causing. Eventually the religion-like mouth-foaming and spittle-flecked-venom will abate.and his eyes will finally be truly open.
Report Post »48Straight
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 2:51amNot lying just telling the truth which hurts dont it. But thanks for your display of total intolerance to an individual’s right to their own fundamental beliefs. Could not have made my point about your religion of the self important jack booted thought police any better myself.
Report Post »Petunia
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:02pmAtheism is also a religion. Though basing your faith in nothing is a little sad. But all the signs of religion are there.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:08pmWhat do you mean? Atheism is based on the belief that a miniature ape-monkey-man evolved into man himself, and performed the miracle of removing all trace of it’s existence. No small feat for any deity!
Report Post »IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:57pmIt is a doctrine not a religion.
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:51pmThere is no god and that’s the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.
Report Post »ltemp
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:20pm@ebaybus
Report Post »” it would never be created exactly that way again.”
did you just say created?
ltemp
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:29pmEverything has an origin even you. Unfortunate for you, everything also has a termination. According to you dirt will be you finale thought and this is something to look forward too?
Report Post »JJBlazeReader
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:47pm..
Unethical, RNS can spin it anyway they want but the reality is that atheists paid for coverage.
Report Post »..
Robert Hawk
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:20pmIf the funding is not there, maybe they are not doing our Fathers work and his is letting that be said loud and clear. If in Fact RNC was doing the work of our Father, then they would be blessed and enough support would be available for them to continue to survive. If they are not performing our Fathers work then they can not expect any blessings. True Christians need not be beggars. Maybe RNC needs to review what it is teaching
Report Post »AllLost
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:25amI support all ideas in the open arena. Let me be the judge of which idea has merit for myself.
Ethical? Many atheists are moral and ethical as they follow Judeo-Christian morals or as it is said the laws written on one’s heart by God.
But if one were a real atheist there should be no such thing as morals or ethics. Ethics are derived from a moral base. As morals are at the foundation and and are supposed to be unchanging they can not simply be the whims of a culture/society.
If I am an atheist there is no foundation morality, and in the end I should do whatever I wish to do held only by the threat or use of force preventing me from doing so.
You may argue that ethics are used to form a civil society. Well if we are simply apes it is in our interest to let the chump anzies follow the rules as we take advantage of everything we can.
Without God there is no morality and no ethics.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:33amMorality can exist apart from God. It existed long before humankind created a God-concept and exists in many, many people who do not have any god-belief. When you invent a definition of “morality” that requires a higher power, you have done nothing to support your claim and have added nothing to the discussion. Anyone can play with words, but the assertion that there is no morality without God is unsupported in my experience.
Report Post »mydh12
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:54am@Calm Voice of Reason
Yes, everyone is born with a conscience, but an atheist has no rational basis for following that conscience and thus it is easier to skew it. The vast majority of atheists maintain a good ethical standard, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are NOT living out the logical consequences of their core beliefs. They are secretly smuggling in theistic ethical standards. And I am glad that they are inconsistent. When we see people logically live out Nietzsche’s atheistic philosophy, it is truly frightening. Just look at the societies that atheistic communism produced.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:18pmThere is every reason to be a moral actor in society, for the good of the individual as well as for the group; further, behavior reflecting the biological nature of this morality can be found in virtually all mammalian species as well as a few birds. A God-belief is unnecessary for those with the capacity to know right from wrong themselves, and the idea that these ideas remain concrete is laughable. There is clearly a cultural component behind morality, no matter who or what you claim generates it.
Report Post »Sara123
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:27pmI think atheists get enough coverage and plus government and cultural dominance over the majority of people in this country. I don’t go to religious news for atheist bumps and now will be careful to avoid what come out of RNS. It is unethical for a news service to take money from an atheist activist group. The love of money…
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:32pmGod existed long before morality, because he created morality, and passed along what we now know as “Natural Laws” to us through his prophets. God created the universe, ergo he created all of it’s contents.
But if you’re trying to equate the morality of believers versus unbelievers, think again,
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html
Yes, I’m sure you atheists here know some “good people” who don’t practice any religion. But where do most people learn their morality? Most would say their parents taught them. But where did their parents learn it? Most likely from church or the bible, as the older generation is much more devout than our current generations. Thus the weekly trip to church and the guiding hand of your grandparents, influenced by God, rubbed off on your parents and thus rubbed off on you.
(In 1940, 2% of people polled said they practiced “no religion”. Today it is close to 12%)
So basically, you reject Christian beliefs, and yet you practice them everyday. You practice them when you drop change in a donation box. You practice them when you hold a door open for somebody. You practice them whenever you do something nice for someone when you aren’t obligated to do so.
In your interpretation, that’s just “being a good person.” which is fine, but don’t think that being a good person and being a proper Christian are unrelated. Always the best among us, the pillars of the community, are the ones who follow Christ
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:44pmGod is nothing more than a notion. The christian god is an absurd notion.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” –Steven Weinberg
Report Post »mydh12
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:35pm@ Calm Voice of Reason
There is either a transcendent objective moral truth of right & wrong *which is rooted in God) or morality is subjective and therefore can be defined by either a majority or minority of people. All of the people in 1930s & 1940s Germany were born with a conscience, but their government then decided that it was moral, and good in an evolutionary sense, to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and Christian dissidents. And the SS soldiers simply followed orders. By your standards, they were not wrong in following those orders, and so the SS soldiers should not have been held responsible. You have no logical way to say what they did was absolutely wrong.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:03pm@MYDH12 (and others): I can say that what the Nazis did was wrong because, as a humanist, I believe in protecting the sovereignty of the individual. I can easily point to situations where the Hebrew God demanded the deaths of his people’s enemies, even for the violent murder of their infant children. I find that absolutely abhorrent, though apologists can somehow find the kernel of moral righteousness in that story that, through some clever word salad, makes of this God even more loving and beautiful.
It might surprise you to know that much of my own morality comes from teachings from the Bible and a childhood of Sunday School. I see no problem finding one’s morality in religion, but I don’t agree that because this morality bears fruit, there must then also be a God. I can easily accept that patience and perseverance bring success, but I would be a fool to think that a tortoise could outrun a hare in the real world.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:41amThe only thing “free” in their thinking is that it is free of intelligence.
Report Post »48Straight
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 4:57amNow that is the funniest and most truthful statement I have heard in a long time.
Report Post »termyt
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:29amI love how “Free thinking” can be attached to a position rather than a way of thinking. If you mindlessly parrot atheist talking points, you too are thinking freely.
Just like when a teenager wants a tattoo because all her friends are doing it and she wants to be an individual, too.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:02amTERMYT, Well put.
Report Post »Sirfoldallot
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:26amThis fad was tried over mans exsitance .
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:04pmI get what you mean. I was once an atheist too, a pretty virulent one. I loved to quote anti-Christian mantras and bumper stickers (oh my! I was such a free thinker) but I eventually outgrew it, little by little, I ‘saw the light’ so they say.
Report Post »jacobstroubles
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:23amLUKE WARM attempt?
Report Post »