
Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible? - joegahona
https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/04/why-are-local-newspaper-websites-so-horrible/558152/
======
samspenc
I actually did some freelance website development for a local newspaper
website around 15 years ago. I can't speak for larger newspapers, this was my
experience with a much smaller one. The biggest challenges I found were:

1\. Lack of a real technical / engineering department. Having said that, their
core business is news and they really just need a functioning website, not a
full (and expensive) engineering department.

2\. They wanted the website to "feel" more like a real newspaper, including
things like incorporating custom layout, design and other elements on the
website. Explaining the limitations of HTML, CSS and Javascript was a bit ...
frustrating for both sides.

3\. Too many opinions on what the website should look like. Ditto for even
small features such as what the photo gallery and subscription pages should
look like.

4\. Too many feature requests, often contradicting each other. It wasn't clear
who was in charge of making decisions on website changes.

~~~
ryandrake
> 1\. Lack of a real technical / engineering department. Having said that,
> their core business is news and they really just need a functioning website,
> not a full (and expensive) engineering department.

I agree with the rest of your points but this one doesn't really make sense.
My guess is it would take _fewer_ engineers to make these websites better. The
horrible parts of newspaper websites are the pop-ups and broken scrolling and
ads that follow you and fixed-position "dickbars" at the top and bottom--
things that don't come with simple HTML and need to be deliberately added by
developers.

Newspapers really do just need a functioning website. Instead they pay
developers to add in all these horrible things.

~~~
snowwrestler
It makes total sense to me. Having web developers is not the same thing as "a
real technical / engineering department." Most of the cruft on newspapers
sites is not carefully implemented custom code. It's a library, or vendor-
supplied code, or CMS plugin that is just installed, configured, and forgotten
about. Without strong engineering leadership, shit just gets piled on top of
shit as the feature requests come in.

Which also relates to items 3 and 4... without strong technical leadership, a
developer team can easily just settle into triage/service mode, where they
just try to keep up with satisfying each request that comes in. The result is
growing technical debt and an unfocused, confused product.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
> Having web developers is not the same thing as "a real technical /
> engineering department."

That's a dangerous opinion to have around these parts. ;)

------
lllr_finger
I worked for a media conglomerate for several years on several high volume
media sites. The GMs and POs that I came across often had a great sense for
what made user experiences great, but those would take a back seat every
single time for revenue opportunities. A company wants to do an ad takeover
for the sites and slather sidebars/banners/popups everywhere, Ad Ops wants to
sell a new module in the right rail, Outbrain/Taboola/whatever wants to pay
you to throw their script and "suggested" stories at the bottom of the page -
of course you jump at the chance to do any of these because the revenue can
easily be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Every time an AMP thread comes up, there is a minority being positive and
trying to find a way to make it work, and it's for the reasons mentioned
above. Apple and Facebook want walled gardens where they control the content
and give the providers whatever revenue they consider "fair", with the huge
benefit that the stories would be fast to load and provide a friendly, uniform
interface. AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen pitched since RSS
has essentially died.

~~~
sonnyblarney
You don't need AMP, you just need PM's with the ability to grasp the tradeoff
between more ads and less users as a result of that.

Obviously it's not an easy thing to decide, but they should be trying to
measure that because I can't handle this crap either.

TV is dying because it's jammed full of annoying commercials. And it's getting
worse as they are dying.

~~~
ivan_gammel
No, TV is dying not because of commercials, but because other formats of
access to the content are easily accessible. There's simply no point in
checking if there's anything interesting on TV now, when you can just pick a
movie from a streaming service or read news on the website. After all, free
online services also show a lot of ads, but this doesn't prevent us, say, from
watching a music video on YouTube (one of those things that made MTV
irrelevant).

~~~
TeMPOraL
There are many ways of watching TV; a lot of people I know want to have
_something_ , not necessarily a particular thing, running "in the background",
as they do their chores. TV would be absolutely fine for this use if not for
the ads.

Also, free on-line services "show" a lot of ads, but everyone I know deals
with it using ad blockers.

~~~
ivan_gammel
Indeed, that's why TV still exists as a niche product, one among others. I'll
tell you more: some people are actually watching ads or not annoyed with them
enough to do something. I haven't even seen people who would bother to find an
ad blocker for YouTube - they just wait those 5 secs and click "Skip" (or
actually watch the ad, if it's good enough).

------
redleggedfrog
Why are _newspapers_ so horrible?

My family used to get a paper newspaper when I was growing up in the 70's and
80's. It had all the regular stuff - news, local news, editorial, sports, etc.
But mostly it was ads. On Sunday it was a monstrosity, being nearly
unmanageable due to the number of ad inserts. Most of it you threw away
without looking at. Most of the stories had no value. One day later I couldn't
remember what I'd read, and years later it didn't matter. I've never gained
any lasting knowledge from the news.

Very little has changed. News has been, and is, nearly worthless.

~~~
jccalhoun
I agree. The thing that most conversations on how to get people to pay for
news miss out on the most important element: the news has to be worth paying
for.

When I was in grad school a few years ago the college had a program to
encourage newspaper readership that gave out "free" copies of the New York
Times and USA Today (which we probably paid for in our tuition fees). I would
pick them both up on most days and there was rarely anything in either of them
worth reading past the headline. I can't imagine ever subscribing to a
newspaper now.

There was so much in a newspaper that I have zero interest in or even if I did
I would look somewhere else than dead trees (sports, stocks, fashion, travel,
horoscopes, advice columns).

I grew up in a rural area and even in the local paper most of what was
original, non-syndicated content was simply stating facts: the high school
basketball team won/lost, there was a wreck, obituaries, births, weddings.

~~~
pvg
_that gave out "free" copies of the New York Times and USA Today (which we
probably paid for in our tuition fees). I would pick them both up on most days
and there was rarely anything in either of them worth reading past the
headline._

No newspaper can really overcome a combination of idle cynicism and
incuriosity. Perhaps you just don't like news.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Hard to call it "idle cynicism and incuriosity" if you know that most of
what's in the news is _at best_ a surface-level coverage, most likely
bullshit, and also completely inconsequential for anything.

News is great as a social object - you and me both read some reporting about
an event at the same time, so when we meet at a bar, we have something to talk
about. It's really bad if you're trying to learn accurate information about
the world.

~~~
tptacek
As a general statement this seems plainly false. Just go to the Pulitzer site,
to the last year's winners, skip to the "investigative journalism" category,
and click around the finalists and back year over year.

Nerds discussing journalism on HN are obsessed with something called the Gell-
Mann Amnesia Effect (it's really the Michael Crichton effect but whatever). It
suggests that if you have an area of expertise --- computer science in our
case, resurrecting dinosaurs in his --- you can fact-check the news media,
and, upon spotting errors pertaining to your expertise, draw conclusions about
the quality of the whole publication.

But of course, that's a silly thing to argue. However good journalists might
or might not be at reporting on tech startups (and John Carreyrou seems to
have done a pretty amazing job with that for WSJ), they're also the ones
staffing bureau's overseas, cultivating sources in state and local
governments, breaking the Harvey Weinstein story, and reporting on toxic fire
retardants in crib mattresses.

~~~
patio11
_they 're also the ones staffing bureau's overseas_

As someone with repeated direct experience with the elite corps that staffs
their bureaus in Japan, I cannot provide evidence in favor of your hypothesis
that they keep a special breed of Pulitzerschreck around for that purpose.
They _still_ call me for Japanese domestic political analysis on the basis of
a) in Japan b) speaks English c) was in the NYT in 2011.

~~~
tptacek
I believe that you got contacted by a dumb reporter about a Japanese political
story by an NYT reporter, but I also know that there are people like Tom
Wright getting paid by major news outlets to cover Asia; the evidence I have
suggests that those outlets do a great deal of important investigative
journalism.

~~~
aptwebapps
I agree there's good journalism being done but Chricton's observation is not
completely off either. The nature of _most_ reporting requires that
journalists talk about stuff without being adequately informed. They have to
produce stuff on demand and there's little penalty to getting stuff wrong.

In any field there's going to be variability in quality and it's not fair or
wise to tar the whole field with the same brush but I think journalism
sometimes attracts people who have a different relationship with facts and
ideas than I do.

I read a piece by a moderately famous journalist a while ago (and I've been
trying to figure out who even since with no luck) who when talking about his
practice said that sometimes there _are_ no experts in a particular subject
and the journalist has to do a 'deep dive' and become the expert. Now he
didn't say exactly what constitutes a 'deep dive' but it struck me as
profoundly arrogant and symptomatic of this problem.

~~~
tptacek
Sometimes they're talking about becoming experts at linear algebra† and we
roll our eyes and fair enough, but sometimes they're talking about becoming
"the" expert about disability compensation for West Virginia coal miners, and
they aren't fucking around, that is for real.

But popping a couple frames back off the stack: the argument that most of
what's in the NYT is superficial or "bullshit" is silly. Though maybe stay
away from the opinion section.

What's annoying is how hard these dumb barbs are to rebut, even when they're
plainly fatuous. Like, I had to go navigate through the Pulitzer categories
and relay back to the thread how to do it, and all the original commenter had
to do was write "the NYT and USA Today are the same thing and both are just
superficial made-up trash".

† _though I 'm sort of waiting to spring a little quiz on the next person who
takes a shot at Gladwell for "Igon Values"._

~~~
pvg
I have to admit, since I'm tut-tutting at other people, that I like spoken-
Gladwell much better than written-Gladwell. And it's the same style and the
same stuff. It's disturbingly subjective (although it would have kept him out
of Igon trouble).

~~~
tptacek
He's really quite excellent at what he does, which is "writing and speaking".
I don't know why it was ever supposed to be a sick burn that he didn't know
what a characteristic polynomial was.

I agree with you, I think. His writing is fantastic (just, like, as a
deployment of the English language) but his podcast is better than most of his
New Yorker stuff and definitely than his books. I've re-listened to the
university funding stuff a couple times.

------
manigandham
I work in adtech and know all the top publishers. There are 2 reasons:

1) Business. Nobody pays for news so they need to generate income from ads.

2) Bad tech (talent, infrastructure, resources, etc) on both publisher and ad
vendors which creates horrible bloated pages.

That's it. Anything else is so secondary as to be insignificant. Take a look
at private subscriber only sites and you'll notice how fast and pleasant they
are to use, because they don't have the poorly implemented heavy cruft added
to the page.

~~~
azernik
That is the conclusion of the article as well:

=============

These aren’t so much questions of the online business of news so much as they
are matters that speak to online news design—the look and feel of a
newspaper’s website to the reader, or what a designer calls user interface and
user experience. But the business and design of news are inextricably linked.
As print ad revenue cratered, the need to squeeze revenue from digital sources
grew. And that pushed news websites to their breaking point.

“Ads are just brutal for what they do to your browser and the sort of utter
lack of regard they have for user experience,” says Ian Adelman, founding
design director of Slate and current chief creative officer at New York
Magazine.

------
dredmorbius
Hamilton Holt's 1909 book, _Commercialism and Journalism,_ tells the story of
the incredible growth of the publishing industry, fueled by six factors, but
to which Holt (a publisher himself) credited advertising for virtually all of
it. And to which he had extreme and justified concerns. He quotes another
journalist (anonymously, though from elsewhere, this is John Swinton):

 _There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for
keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should
allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-
four hours my occupation, like Othello 's, would be gone. The business of a
New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to
vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race
for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the
scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes._

[https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft](https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft)

This from a lecture series at the University of California, Berkeley, on the
Morals of Trade.

Selling news has been a tricky busines from the start.

Circulation has been falling consistently for a while now:

[https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/Figure2.png](https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/Figure2.png)

------
showkiller
The business model is driving these poor choices.

This article addresses the business model which I believe would make room for
better site experiences.

[https://stratechery.com/2017/the-local-news-business-
model/](https://stratechery.com/2017/the-local-news-business-model/)

------
sanj
One large component is the inability of these companies to calculate the cost
of the adtech on their pages.

They simply don’t have anyone who can measure the negative impact of slowing
page speed, obscuring articles, increasing comics rate, scrolling jankiness,
etc.

The adtech providers optimize around ease of install (one line of JavaScript!)
over any costs that will entail for customers.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's most likely on purpose. Adtech is as much about making you money as it is
about making you think that it's making you money.

------
expertentipp
It's funny how they scream "free media", "support us", "internet is dying",
while the core content of an article is perhaps 2-4kb of text. That's how they
react when being cut off from income from tracking and advertising providers.
They monetize the 2kb of text till the last drop of blood at the cost of
privacy of their visitors.

------
pier25
I work at a educational publishing company developing interactive digital
books. Everyone involved in the publishing/editorial dept. is quite frankly
completely clueless about technology. Not only they don't know it works, but
most importantly they couldn't care less about it.

It would not surprise me the people at the helm in large newspapers don't
really care about "the experience" and still think in terms of content + ads.
Heck, even Wired's website is horribly bloated and slow.

~~~
user1324345
Gotta be a startup opportunity somewhere here

------
dedalus
For quality news I typically pay a service like Blendle
([https://blendle.com/](https://blendle.com/)) which curates content and gives
me an ad free viewer to read the curated content.

It selects the best long form essays across publications like The Guardian,
The Economist, WSJ, NYT, etc and presents to you in a nice clutter free format

Otherwise I also Desktop AMP Chrome extension which shows a AMP version of a
news page where possible

([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amp-accelerated-
mo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amp-accelerated-mobile-
pa/abbbnefchbpffkbnadnopdahjcmbheho?hl=en))

------
Tpsoc
I used to work for a company as a dev that owned a few papers in various
areas.

Our dev team was like any other company. You had a few senior guys that were
good, some decent mid level, and one or two that did notbelong.

A few people mentioned what I saw in my short time at the company, the ad ops
and sales folks came up with all these ad placements and IT had to work it in,
with no regards to affects on UI.

The other thing I noticed was that the people in charge had a hard time during
redesigns in removing elements that people had fought to add in the first
place.

------
bluedino
Advance Local Media owns a lot of newspaper companies online presence. Their
software is terrible, there are so many ads the content doesn’t load half the
time.... plus with all the cutbacks over the last few years the actual
articles are garbage. No details, bad writing, spelling errors, street names
that are wrong, nobody proofread a these days.

------
rmason
Building a newspaper business for the digital age is a hard problem that has
yet to be solved.

~~~
sparkzilla
Check what we are up to at NewsBlocks:
[http://newsblocks.io](http://newsblocks.io)

~~~
llao
> The decentralised platform for trusted news applications

> The NewsBlocks token sale is planned for Q4 2018. The token sale will fund
> the creation of the NewsBlocks blockchain, seed the content, and fund
> application development.

Spam your scam elsewhere.

~~~
dang
Attacking fellow users like this will get you banned on HN, even if you find
their website annoying. Please don't post like this. The idea here is: if you
have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please
don't comment until you do.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
jakeinsf
As an innocent bystander, and at the risk of getting banned, I have to say I
think the post you're replying to was thoughtful and had a substantive point
which is that posts that use the comment section to promote their business
ventures, especially those that are most likely pyramid schemes, are
unwelcome. You'd rather ban the whistleblower? I guess you don't like the word
"scam" because it assumes a value judgement? The fact is, scams do exist, and
they are promoted online, as we all well know. In fact, this very article is
about how newspaper websites have turned into advertising spam sites instead
of journalism destinations. The fact that you seem to be advocating
advertising in your comment section is worrying to me. I was attracted to HN
because it doesn't feature advertising that I'm aware of (at least not with
javascript turned off and an ad-blocking proxy). If you're trying to let
comment-advertisers know you're a safe space for them, I probably won't want
to continue visiting. Next you'll be telling us you make $7,000 a month
working from home and here's how!

~~~
dang
I'm glad you've noticed that HN is relatively spam-free. If you continue to
read HN, you'll also notice that we don't ban people for replying to us. We
ban them for breaking the site guidelines, and even then we're pretty lenient.

It's not spam when a longtime user is linking to their work in a relevant
context and hasn't been making a habit of it. The two cases are trivial to
tell apart if you're willing to take a minute, and it has always been ok to
for users to tell others about their work this way on HN—as long as they don't
overdo it. Whether you like the project or not is a separate question. As for
thoughtfulness, "spam your scam elsewhere" is basically leading with a punch
in the nose.

------
fouc
The better question is - why are newspapers so horrible?

I think that in today's age, we need to focus on a new way of presenting the
data instead of converting them into narratives/prose. The problem is there's
a limit to how much information you can cram into prose, or read back from it.
It's hard to quickly get an overview of any particular bit of data relative to
all the others that are nearby. You have to trust the news author actually
understands the whole story and didn't discount anything. Plus stories aren't
static, there's constant updates that are coming out, why not see all the
information and the timeline all at once, continually updating? Especially in
a distraction free format.

~~~
mwfunk
This is all tangential, but fascinating. Newspapers are the way they are
because they’re still printed, and the digital version ends up straddling the
line between the preexisting print format and a web site. What you’re
describing only makes sense in the context of purely digital newspapers, or
newspapers that are digital first, and print a distant second. A site like
Axios may be a step in that direction, but it’s only scratching the surface of
what could be done in that space. I would love to see something like what you
described someday.

------
chrisweekly
Slightly off-topic bc the NYT is clearly not the target here, but I'll say it
anyway: the webdev crew at NYT is first-rate. They've even open-sourced some
cool stuff. It's a shame other papers generally can't hold a candle to the
standard they set.

~~~
fsck--off
The NYT website has gotten worse and worse over the years. Decreased contrast,
JS bloat, hamburger menu, etc.

------
SamWhited
This is exactly what pushed me to get a Guardian subscription over a more
local (U.S. based) paper (although I wish I could get the actual paper here
too on more than just weekends).

Their website doesn't auto play video, I've never seen a modal, it looks okay
everywhere and doesn't use too much unnecessary JavaScript that will only lead
to broken menus or whatever on phones, when you have a subscription all ads go
away, when you're not logged in there's no annoying paywall, and when they do
ask for money it's a small banner at the bottom of articles that doesn't get
in the way, doesn't cover content, etc. and to top it all off the frontend is
on their GitHub account.

I wish other papers would follow this model.

------
amarand
Web-sites are better if you use an ad blocking service. Sure, some sites like
the Wall Street Journal won't let you read content with an ad-blocker enabled
unless you're a paying subscriber, but I can almost always get similar content
elsewhere.

But yes, that's one of the problems with taking one form of medium (a physical
newspaper) and abstracting it into a new format.

When the original Windows came out, they had to figure out which low-res icons
would most accurately represent their real-world counterparts. But that was
decades ago.

Now, things (icons, UI, design) are more symbolic of what we want to do, not
the way they were.

I feel like newspapers, sometimes, try to keep their newspaper look and feel,
all the while, adding a crap-ton of useless content. I'm there for an article,
not for all the rest of it.

I have a few friends who work in the news(paper) industry, and I know that the
job of photographer, in some newsrooms, has also taken on the role of web-
developer, and even reporter. I mean, you're on the scene taking pictures, why
not ask questions too? A difficult job made more difficult by lowering
circulation levels, and lower budgets.

So I guess the best way to encourage good on-line news is to subscribe to the
digital formats, and let them know when they aren't doing their job?

------
rado
Funny you should ask, modal-window toting Citylab.

------
jccalhoun
I used to like the local newspaper's terrible site. On the rare times I went
to it looking for news, they would put up a div to blur out the article if you
weren't a subscriber. It was easy to just open the inspector and delete the
div to read the article. Now they update their site to actually not load the
article unless you subscribe. Progress...

~~~
manigandham
That actually is real progress... I'm not sure why its a problem if the
content is meant for subscribers.

------
tempodox
Quick and simplistic answer to the titular question: Because they‘re not
newspapers but petri dishes for online advertising.

------
erazor42
Oh the irony of reading this article on a website full of ads

------
Mikho
I guess there are two problems:

1/ Usually through an evolutionary process the whole CMS structure for a paper
becomes rather cumbersome with many patches and suboptimal services that
nobody really knows about in details. Especially if the tech team rotates. And
this leads to the next point.

2/ Bad administrative control of who put what on a page--sales, marketing,
editors etc., and this results in a crappy experience with 50-100 different
tracking garbage on every page.

As a result, almost every paper becomes a pretty ugly monster that nobody
wants to touch not to ruin everything. Any potential change could lead to the
whole system collapse.

------
MisterTea
Modern webdesign, along with most of modern "computing", threw common sense
out the window along with most of history in a quest to create the most bland,
shapeless, flat websites and apps full of white space as far as the mouse can
scroll. I can see flattening out things. but for the love of god use the damn
pixels for drawing things like text and graphics instead of white nothingness.

------
rossdavidh
So, besides the many negative things I could say about how bad newspaper sites
yes in fact are, I have a question: is there anywhere out there a newspaper
site (even local) that IS just static HTML, with unobtrusive or nonexistent
ads? Like, we only need one maybe, and we could support it. Does it exist?

~~~
Double_a_92
[https://eu.usatoday.com](https://eu.usatoday.com) Seems pretty nice after
they were "forced" to remove all the nasty scripts.

------
tobyhinloopen
Citylab.com is just as horrible...

------
phjesusthatguy3
Newspapers slit their own throats back in 1994-5 or so when they decided to
put their content up for free because they could sell ad space. It was a bad
idea then, and I don't think anyone's tried to fix it in the past 25 years.

~~~
forapurpose
> Newspapers slit their own throats back in 1994-5 or so when they decided to
> put their content up for free because they could sell ad space.

Newspapers had little choice, because they compete with lots of other free
information and because payment mechanisms are too costly (in reader time and
frustration).

> It was a bad idea then, and I don't think anyone's tried to fix it in the
> past 25 years.

In fact, in journalism in the last 25 years - maybe the last 50 or 100 years -
I doubt anything has gotten more attention than than a solution to this
problem.

~~~
phjesusthatguy3
1993 -- 25 years ago -- was an experimental time for the Internet.

The only competition they had was other pioneers slitting their own throats
because that's how you got recognized on this new-fangled World Wide Web.

    
    
      A lot of newspapers thought they could sell ad space against their Internet properties for at least as much as they were selling their newspaper-based classified ads.  That was obviously not the case.
    

I appreciate that you think the WWW has always had the power it does now, but
back in '93 it was a niche in the multiple ways a content provider had to
distribute their wares.

------
pkstn
[https://twitter.com/pakastin/status/1039020252791795712](https://twitter.com/pakastin/status/1039020252791795712)

------
iainmerrick
Turn JavaScript off and most of them are fine.

------
dazc
My local newspaper site works just fine with javascript disabled and with 20
or so tracking urls blocked in my hosts file.

------
lwhi
I find it ironic the site has a big cookie modal you need to accept before
reading anything.

~~~
danso
I don't see it. Is for EU users only?

~~~
Kalium
Yup, it's a GDPR-driven options configuration thing.

------
jblow
s/Newspaper//g

------
toddsiegel
I subscribe to a few online publications. I know paywalls can be easy to
cheat, but I prefer not to. I would love it if news sites would add pay per
article, where I could buy 50 articles upfront and use them up over a few
months.

~~~
procinct
That's a similar model to Blendle IIRC. It's been some time since I used
Blendle but I remember it being a cool idea, just the app was a little half
baked back then. Not sure what sort of state it would be in now.

------
mpax
I think historians will look back on this era and point society’s decline
towards two companies, they both start with “Go”.

~~~
rightbyte
... which co. Is the not Google one?

~~~
axedwool
Goldman Sachs?

~~~
rightbyte
We can blame them for much but not this. I don't even blame Google for this.
The newspaper initially giving away their content for free is the "problem".
Now it's to late to change people's habits.

What they should have done is only making the web site accessible for
subscribers or people with a day-pass from buying a paper. The transition from
paper to digital would then be more or less seamless for the consumer as they
would have both for a while.

Making people realize they don't need the news papers was their mistake.

------
pictur
I think people want it. I do not think most news sites will reach the same
number of visitors after passing a good interface. maybe people like horrible
interfaces. yes i am joking. maybe i don't not.

~~~
pictur
why do you give this comment a negative score? Are you a newspaper site
employee? :)

