A common fallacy regarding new media is the theory of technological determinism, that new technologies will determine the manner through which we interact with our reality. This is the case with cable news networks. A 24-hour news format boasted the potential to change the way we interacted with our reality by offering uninterrupted, in-depth news coverage. Instead, the proliferation of news networks like CNN and Fox News Channel have initiated the expectation of immediate news coverage eliminating the need to wait for the evening news or the morning paper. This creates a format that demands a repetition of the day’s biggest news stories for a constantly fluctuating audience without any extended discussion of the issues. For fifteen years, CNN was the only network to provide “up-to-the-minute coverage.” In 1996, this monopoly collapsed with the advent of FOX News Channel and MSNBC. Since then, the battle between networks has escalated beyond the Cola Wars of the 1980s. Through an extended bout of mudslinging and name calling, these two networks have emerged as diametric opposites regardless of their actual differences. Fox employs the acronym the “Clinton News Network,” while CNN personalities often refer to FOX as “the F word.” This onscreen battle proliferates at the expense of information, analysis, and the American public.
News is no longer objective; rather consumers choose their news source based on personal convictions and lifelong affiliations instead of content. The focus of this paper is to shed light on the hyper visible grudge match occurring between CNN and Fox and its effect on the American citizen. Themes common to the Cola Wars and the News Wars include a feisty challenger, customer loyalty, slogans, celebrity endorsement, and the infamous Blind Taste Test. These components will be analyzed with respect to the current news media landscape to contextualize the newest popular culture war and create an evolutionary trajectory of postmodern news media.
The Trajectory of Journalism post Vietnam
There are several shifts in news programming after the Vietnam War that set the stage for the upcoming news wars. These shifts include (1) the emergence of soft news, (2) the blurring of news and op/ed programming, and (3) cable.
American television experienced an extreme transition in the late seventies: the end of the Network Era approached as cable infiltrated homes. Major news events including the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War proved the capacity of American news programming in the early seventies and the industry became aware of its location and influence in American culture. Network executives played into audience preferences to achieve the largest possible viewing audience while politicians used the networks to affect the national audience.
The power of images was apparent with the tumultuous protests of the sixties and seventies. Images guaranteed ratings, therefore, became the source of a story. This is evident in a comparison of the aforementioned events with the Watergate scandal, which provided no images or hooks to ensnare the audience; following a paper trail does not equate to “good television.” This march continued into the eighties with Van Gordon Sauter, the head of CBS News (1981-83, 1985-88). He shifted CBS away from Cronkite’s serious, Washington-based news format to emphasizing the emotionality of current events, otherwise known as “soft news.” “He wanted stories that were visual, rooted in human interest, and evocative of the American experience” (Barkin 82).
News-talk programs also proliferated during this time. This opinion discussion format was introduced in 1947 with NBC’s Meet the Press as well as similar programs on ABC (Issues and Answers) and CBS (Face the Nation). These interview programs were usually confined to Sunday afternoons, thereby creating a distinct separation between news and opinion. However, industrial trends of the late seventies blur this division. Barkin states that, during this time, “opinions were directly presented as facts – or the two were so intertwined in their delivery as to be inseparable… [and] not all of the participants were actually journalists” (76). Personalities like Pat Buchanan served as political operatives, posing as journalists to vocalize a distinct political agenda.
The appearance of these trends before cable and media deregulation serve as a disturbing reminder that recent changes have only accelerated preexisting faults in American news media.
Cable was introduced into American homes at the end of the 1970s; the extended broadcast range allowed for specialty programming. Networks like Nickelodeon and MTV discovered the potential of tapping specific demographic markets, a technique later employed by Fox and MSNBC to attract audiences. In addition, Caldwell’s theory of televisuality refers to television in the late 1980s and 90s, wherein the style of the program becomes the content. Programs including Entertainment Tonight, American Gladiators and Cops all emphasize the style of their program over the actual content. This shift in network programming is attributed to a variety of socio economic factors caused by the prevalent success of cable and a desperate need to ensnare audiences.
In addition to the changing face of television, Reagan’s business deregulation plan had a catalytic effect on American industry. Media conglomerates formed as the Federal Communications Commission drastically increased the number of stations that a single company could own. The FCC also repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which stated that all broadcast licensees (radio or television) were required to present controversial matters of public in a fair and balanced manner; all involved parties were given airtime to present or defend their position. Media companies claimed that the Fairness Doctrine impeded free speech and, due to the large number of media outlets, this legislation was unnecessary. Despite these drastic changes in media regulation and news programming, Ted Turner managed to emerge from this hostile environment to create one of the largest media corporations in American history
On June 1, 1980, Ted Turner, a rouge media upstart, introduced the Cable News Network (CNN) to the American media landscape. At the time, cable reached approximately 16 million homes and CNN was broadcast in 1.7 of them, or 1.06% (Barkin 109). CNN struggled as the “Chicken Noodle Network” to gain recognition in the journalism, television and advertising industries. Five years after its inception, it reported its first profit of $20 million (Barkin 110). The network functioned as a steady news ticker, experiencing massive increases in ratings during important events and a relatively low rating otherwise. “We changed news from watching something that happened to watching something as it was happening” (Turner). The network gained recognition during major news events, especially as the only network to broadcast live from Baghdad during the American attacks in 1991. This new format allowed CNN to quickly change programming in order to cover any event around the world for extended periods of time thereby forcing the established network news divisions to improve their structure. Since then, CNN has expanded globally and now broadcasts to an audience of over 1.5 billion from 34 bureaus around the world (11 domestic).
In 1996, everything changed. Turner Broadcasting System (including CNN) merged with Time Warner and Turner generally relinquished control over the network; Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign dominated the headlines; the Republican Party went to battle with their new majority in the senate and congress, and the monopoly on 24-hour news was destroyed with the introduction of the FOX News Channel and MSNBC. The brain child of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, FOX was originally introduced as an alternative to the liberal bias of CNN and approached the news from a decidedly entertainment perspective, employing all of the shifts in television including sensational dialogue, high levels of emotionality, televisual graphics, and a merging of opinion and news. Despite its calculated image, the network experienced technical obstacles in its first years: its staff was one-fifth the size of CNN with a budget one-tenth as large (Barkin 113). Murdoch also found himself in a struggle with Turner for cable carriers; TimeWarner Cable refused to carry FOX in New York and Los Angeles. The matter was easily resolved through satellite swapping between the two media giants.
MSNBC, a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC, also debuted in 1996 and filled the requisite role of the third network. This venture emphasized a young, hip, start-up persona and sold itself as an interactive, technologically savvy, multimedia news outlet. By 2000, MSNBC showed gains among 25-40 year olds, but could not compare to the runaway success of FOX. Much like Tab, MSNBC settled in for the long haul and often focuses on improving their own programming instead of demonizing the competition. This delightful comparison becomes even more evident when comparing the CNN, or the classic network, to Fox, the feisty challenger.
CNN Classic vs. FOX – The taste of a new generation
CNN maintained a monopoly over the cable news network format for fifteen years. From its inception, the network battled to receive recognition and eventually proved that it had the power, drive and journalistic integrity of any established network news program. During this time, there was no discussion of CNN’s bias; survival was its top priority. However, the nineties brought drastic changes in the political and cultural landscape: Clinton took office while gangsta rap, grunge and Madonna battled for the top spot on the pop charts. The early nineties became consumed with discussions of race, gender, and sex scandals.
In 1994, this cultural battle intensified with the Republican takeover of the Senate and Congress. This conservative movement was driven by voters who were displeased, politically and culturally, with Clinton’s first twenty months in office; the momentum continued under the popularity of conservative personalities including Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and culminated with Rupert Murdoch’s newest addition to the NewsCorp family: FOX News Channel. Murdoch recognized an opening in the American media landscape and proceeded to fill the void with extremely marketable material. “If all current organizations present liberal news, a single right-of-center organization would have half of the political spectrum to themselves. The only conservative firm in a liberal-dominated market could likely draw larger audiences than possible as a member of the cartel” (Sutter 433). FOX catered to staunch conservatives who were experiencing an increase in power despite Clinton’s reelection. It emerged as a conservative outlet to battle the supposedly liberal bias of CNN, and employed several strategies to ensure that the audience would be aware of the network’s stance.
The Importance of Slogans
The challenger, not the incumbent, defined the terms of the Cola Wars. Pepsi consistently presented itself as the drink of youth, thereby implying that its rival, Coca-Cola, was not. Slogans like “Be Young, Have Fun, Drink Pepsi,” clearly pursued a specific demographic while Coca-Cola was marketing to every American.
The current News Wars are defined by a political demographic. For fifteen years, CNN was in the American market. As the only news network, they were forced to compete with the three television networks and Turner could not afford to alienate any part of the audience. FOX’s arrival sought a very specific conservative demographic and subsequently divided America into CNN viewers and FOX viewers. The network focused on demonizing the incumbent with slogans like “Fair and Balanced,” implying that their rival, CNN, was not fair or balanced. However, when confronted with the accusation that FOX is conservative, Roger Ailes, FOX chairman, says that “there are more conservatives on Fox… but we are not a conservative network. That disparity says far more about the competition.” (Barkin 113).
FOX’s other taglines like “The spin stops here,” (The O’Reilly Factor) and “We Report, You Decide” appear contradictory to the network’s tactics; by stating their mission repeatedly, the viewing public comes to believe it, whether or not it is evident in the broadcast. O’Reilly’s talking points are synonymous with editorial spin despite his position as FOX’s premiere primetime newsman while “the latter disregards a long time media shift towards breaking down the barriers between news and editorial” (FAIR). Recently, FAIR reported on the news media’s reaction to the changing American attitudes towards the Iraq War…
Brit Hume (FOX News Sunday, 11/27/05) … took the position that public opinion, at least for now, is irrelevant: “The Iraqi forces and the U.S. forces are winning. Iraq is moving forward. This is all happening. It’s unfolding. And when it does and proceeds to its logical conclusion, this war will, for all intents and purposes, have been won. Iraq will not be a terrorist state, and the world will be better off and the public will, in the fullness of time, know that. You can’t expect the public to get it right every minute of every day at all times.” An odd stance to take for the main anchor of a news outlet whose slogan is, “We report, you decide” (FAIR – November 30, 2005).
In all of this posturing, FOX has successfully relegated CNN to the liberal default. The actual bias of CNN is irrelevant. Once again, the truth is relative and, in a hyper mediated society, repetition is tantamount to evidence. The media has regularly been criticized for its supposed liberal slant but for every accusation of liberal bias, there is a counter of conservative bias. Conservatives often cite individuals such as Richard Kaplan, president of CNN (1997-2000) and long time friend of the Clintons and Castro, for being too soft on the Democratic Party and biased towards liberal values. Alternatively, liberals cite individuals like John Ellis, George W. Bush’s cousin and a freelance political advisor contracted by FOX, who was responsible for making the historic call to Fox announcing that Bush had won Florida in the 2000 election. There are a variety of flawed quantitative studies offer a scattered perspective regarding the actual bias of news reporting. All of this posturing as liberal, conservative, unbiased, seeks to attract specific viewers and cater to a pre-established audience.
The attacks of 9/11 catapulted FOX into a patriotic fervor, which many Americans gravitated to during this time of grief and shock. The coverage of this event helped Fox to surpass CNN in the Nielsen ratings. The Pew Research Group released a study in 2004 charting the political affiliation of cable news network viewers. 27% of Democrats and 20% of Republicans turned to CNN for their campaign coverage, while 13% of Democrats and 29% of Republicans depended on FOX (Pew – June 8, 2004).
The issue of seeking to appeal to one’s base is that there is no need to incorporate new ideas or affect the knowledge of the audience. Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the News War are statistics claiming that FOX viewers are more likely to have misperceptions regarding the war in Iraq. In 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that 80% of FOX viewers believed that connections were found between Iraq and Al Qaeda, WMDs were discovered in Iraq, and that the global opinion of the Iraq War was favorable (Kull). Regardless of whether FOX claims to broadcast incorrect information, its viewers are extremely misguided.
The phenomenon of celebrity endorsement can make or break a product. The two soda giants regularly battle for pop stars to appear in their commercials. In the News Wars, the networks establish their own celebrities. FOX, CNN and MSNBC rely on this classic technique to bolster their reputation with the viewing public; newscasters are presented as brands that guarantee the newsworthiness of the network and its content. In the tradition of Walter Cronkite, individuals including Larry King, Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, Greta Van Susteren, Lou Dobbs, and Geraldo Rivera are labeled “celebrity journalists.” According to Ed Turner, a longtime news executive at CNN, headlines remain the same from network to network in this competitive industry and differences arise from the anchors, not the news content (Barkin 12).
This begs the question, what is different about the celebrity anchors? Due in part to the lack of entertainment support for the Republican Party and a long-time consignment to talk radio, conservative pundits often present an onscreen personality that far outshines their liberal counterparts. From Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter, conservatives have mastered the art of refocusing news broadcasts to highlight their personas instead of the news. In the bombastic tradition of Limbaugh, anchors like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity of Fox and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, regularly interrupt and antagonize their guests in a manner that is directly proportional to their political views. The popularity of these figures undermines journalistic integrity as well as appropriate interview demeanor and refocuses the news broadcast from current issues to the anchor’s personal ideology. In an extreme demonstration of personality over content, Howard Stern will be entered O’Reilly’s “spin free zone” for two nights in December 2005. The shows focused on the conflicting personalities and ideologies of the two men and information fell to a distant second.
This emphasis on personality over content perpetuates what Thomas Frank refers to as “misdirection” wherein matters of great consequence are overwhelmed by public discourse around Christian fundamentalism and the culture war. FOX originated as a pulpit for those disheartened with the nations’ democratic leadership. After rallying together its base, the network now strives to convince the American public (specifically the right) that the liberal media has changed their way of life. This media backlash “tells all those cranky suburbanites who tune into Fox News [that they] are unfairly and outrageously persecuted” (Frank 158). By creating, reinforcing and mobilizing the “victims,” FOX anchors serve a very different purpose than most; they are preachers seeking to rally their constituency thereby requiring a very different approach to news broadcasting.
Issues of celebrity endorsement are further compounded by the current administration’s preference for Fox news. Recently, Dick Cheney gave an exclusive interview to Brit Hume after his unfortunate hunting accident instead of going through the standard procedure of a press conference. His choice demonstrated a preference for and endorsement of Fox News, a common trend among conservatives.
The Blind Taste Test
Despite this bipartisan mudslinging, both CNN and FOX insist that their content is more relevant and comprehensive than their competitors’ and claim a strict code of journalist ethics. When Pepsi initiated the blind taste test, or the “Pepsi Challenge,” customers were provided with a small sample of both colas and asked to choose one. The truth behind the illusion is that Pepsi has more sugar than Coca-Cola and, in small samples, most people choose the sweeter beverage. However, customers tend to prefer Coca-cola after drinking an entire can of both sodas (Thompson).
In the case of the News Wars, the blind taste test returns as debate programming. The audience is led to believe that, if given both sides of an argument, they are capable of coming to an educated decision. Representatives are urged to debate as long as it fits clearly within preexisting socio-political structures and is viscerally stimulating. These programs also encourage heated on air arguments for higher ratings. Debate programs like Crossfire (CNN), Hardball w/ Chris Matthews (MSNBC) and Hannity and Colmes (FOX) provide the illusion of objectivism while perpetuating partisan politics and subtly affecting the audience reaction.
The American press historically prides itself on its obligation to report the news, not opinion. Editorials are restricted to the Editorial Page and news magazines are relegated to Sunday afternoon discussion. With the advent of celebrity newscasters, media deregulation, the 24-hour news network, and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the boundary between editorial and journalism has collapsed. This historical acknowledgement of unbiased reporting is diluted into debate programming, which claims that both sides of an issue are properly represented. By trivializing public debate and streamlining it a segmented television broadcast, these programs have sparked what is known as the “Crossfire Effect,” which simplifies all issues into a binary and subsequently reduces meaningful conversation by only discussing the extreme, established viewpoints.
The debate show allows the network to present itself as fair and balanced by “featuring” both sides. However, these programs do not resolve any of the issues, nor do they introduce new perspectives to the public; rather, they reinforce a preexisting bipartisan tendency that is simultaneously employed and demonized by both sides. After making several public statements regarding the poor quality of the program, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show was the only guest on a very special edition of Crossfire in October 2004. Stewart took the opportunity to reprimand the hosts for their role in perpetuating partisan politics and begged them to “Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.” He drew attention to the theatrical style of news debate programs and how these programs reinforce the political binary without achieving any real discussion.
Another advantage of FOX over CNN is its clear bias. After 9/11, CNN faced a dilemma regarding its broadcast. Although American media was adamantly uncritical of the government in the months following the attacks, the rest of the world demanded discussion regarding America’s role in global hegemony and the Middle East. CNN decided to broadcast 2 versions of the reports, one for American audiences and one for international audiences. FOX experienced no such issue as its attitude towards the attacks and the administration is clear even to its global affiliates. The comparison of Coke’s global domination and its ability to change its format and advertising for different cultures is similar to CNN’s diverse worldwide audience, a market that Fox is only beginning to venture into. However, the distinctly American style of Fox News and the current global sentiment towards this administration may affect its overseas reception
Despite a drastic industrial difference, the approach of the Cola Wars in the eighties has been revived and employed by two new cultural rivals, CNN and Fox News Channel. FOX, as the challenger, defined the battle lines, acceptable weapons and mastered the maneuvers before CNN was aware that there was a war. As the information industry continues to adopt tactics from the entertainment industry in its quest for more viewers, the tenets of journalism dissolve into a mad dash for ratings.
The Future of Journalism in a 24-Hours News Cycle
The current state of journalism is a troublesome one. In the 19th century, Thomas Carlyle presented the idea of The Fourth Estate to emphasize the role of the press in parliament. “Edmund Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth estate more important than they all” (Carlyle). Since then, the press (in this case, the “media”) has clung to an obligation to its constituency to present information in a manner that is informative and comprehensive.
The three main ethical points of journalism are to:
- Seek Truth and Report It
- Act Independently
- Minimize Harm
- Be Accountable
Each of these three points is undermined through the aforementioned methodical changes in news production and, before analyzing the illusionary difference between CNN and FOX, their common indiscretions must be catalogued.
Within the first heading, there are a series of sub points that include “Be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting accurate information, “ “Give voice to the voiceless” and “Hold the powerful accountable.” To state that news organizations are deliberately lying to their viewers would spark a conspiracy worthy of another paper. Rather, political rhetoric teaches that truth is relative. In the case of corporate television media, ratings and revenue are more important than discovering and reporting the truth. Therefore, each individual reporter is encouraged to perform within the confines of the network in order advance, while on a corporate level, stockholders interests far outweigh those of the public. Instead of blatantly lying, mass media restricts the content of news programming in the corporate interest. This was disturbingly evident after Disney purchased ABC and restricted the network from airing a story regarding employed pedophiles at Disney theme parks (Guensberg), despite the clear public interest. The powerful are no longer held accountable for fear of incriminating themselves.
Media conglomerates also reduce the diversity of opinions raised in the public forum. Although viewers may receive hundreds of channels, six media companies provide the majority of our broadcast range. These companies include TimeWarner, Disney, NewsCorp, General Electric/NBC, Vivendi, and Viacom, which feed off of each other’s programs, stories and information thereby encouraging a narrow focus. In 2004 documentary, Control Room, Lt. Rushing makes it very clear that the American news organizations do not emphasize the connection between Israel and Iraq, “I guarantee you; no one makes this association back home.” This lack of discussion in news media is related to both special interests and a general disavowal necessary contextualization. To describe the connection between Israel and Iraq would require a massive dedication of time and money, items that no powerful business is willing to part with. In addition, contextualizing a story often exposes the reporter to attacks of personal bias, which, before FOX and 9/11, could mean the end of a career in journalism.
The accelerating expansion of media conglomerates makes it almost impossible for any major news source to “Act Independently.” Under this heading, sub points include “Seek out and disseminate competing perspectives without being unduly influenced by those who would use their power or position counter to the public interest” and “Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise your integrity or damage your credibility.” These statements are counterintuitive to the media conglomerate. As mentioned above, mass media corporations are involved in multiple aspects of the media process and often suffer from conflicting interests. This discord became particularly important during 2002 and 2003 as the Federal Communications Commission considered changing media ownership rules. The American public experienced a veritable media blackout regarding the issue. On September 7, 2002, The New York Times published an article announcing that the FCC would begin to investigate the current statute. According to a survey by KCET, ABC’S World News This Morning was the only news broadcast to mention the story at 4:40 in the morning .
Finally, “Minimizing Harm” seems almost archaic in the current incarnation of news programming. With the proliferation of communication devices and a postmodern emphasis on imagery, the visual becomes more important than the story. “If it bleeds it leads” has become the mantra of broadcast news and the most visually visceral stories receive top coverage and desperate tactics used to scoop a story subsequently hurt the visually demanding audience. CNN pioneered a change in the way citizens interact with their information by offering around-the-clock coverage; viewers no longer had to wait for the evening news, they could watch it as it unfolded. This immediate demand encourages reporters to enter even the most private of spaces for a story, or even worse, create the stories themselves. This change became fatal on July 15, 1974. Christine Chubbuck, a local newswoman in Sarasota Florida, began her morning show at 9:30 in the morning. Shortly thereafter, she announced, “In keeping with Channel 40’s policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts in living color, we bring you another first, an attempted suicide,” at which point she pulled a .38 caliber pistol from under her desk, aimed it at the back of her skull and fired. The technical direct managed to cut the visual before Chubbuck pulled the trigger, but audiences heard the shot clearly. Her live protest continued with her handwritten account of her own story, describing how she had been taking to Sarasota Memorial hospital and was listed in critical condition (Quinn). Chubbuck’s death may be one of the most powerful media protests to date but, despite major media coverage around the story, did not change the journalism’s trek towards higher ratings and a subsequent disregard for human life.
In a post-9/11 society, fear tactics are commonplace at all levels of communication. Fear is a proven marketing tool in any industry. Proper marketing should convince the consumer that they are unhappy, unfulfilled or at risk without a given product. Fear will cause desperate viewers to watch the news daily to discover potential life-threatening issues. Teasers like “what in your house is killing your children,” or “find out which SUVs are most likely to kill toddlers” entice viewers to stay tuned to learn about their well-being. Often, the substance of these stories is innocuous or rare; the teasers are used to keep audiences through commercial breaks. However, well-crafted fear tactics will cause viewers to develop a psychological attachment to their news source, fearful of any change that might put them at risk. These dedicated viewers remain with the network for prolonged periods of time and become susceptible to any and all media marketing. Spigel outlines in her article “Entertainment Wars: Television Culture after 9/11” how the 2001 attacks forced changes in American programming (network and cable). After the attack, networks broadcast over 90 straight hours from ground zero, without commercials or entertainment programming. Audiences were neither given the chance to reflect on the events nor grieve; they were forced to relive the events and the aftermath daily. At the end of the week, networks stated that it was their “national duty to return to the ‘normal’ everyday schedule of television entertainment” implying that normal America is synonymous with commercialization (Spigel)
Noam Chomsky discusses a proven method for maintaining political power, to “inspire fear” or “frighten the populous into obedience” (115). American propaganda techniques are not new to the American media landscape, but with increased communication and news outlets, these fear tactics are employed at a heightened level. In his book Hegemony or Survival, Chomsky outlines the effects of American propaganda domestically and internationally. Unsurprisingly, these tactics are widely successful at home and fail abroad. Often, the administration’s approach depends on the media-saturated American environment to reinforce their ideology and the news media plays perfectly into their plans, despite multiple news outlets. In 1989, Hodding Carter, former assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration wrote, “the mass media in America have an overwhelming tendency to jump up and down and bark in concert whenever the White House – any White House – snaps its fingers” (Chomsky 117). Very little has changed in the past seventeen years.
 The report, in its entirety: Liz Cho, ABC News: “Government regulators reportedly are likely to allow the country’s media giants to get even bigger. THE NEW YORK TIMES says the Federal Communications Commission is reviewing media ownership rules this week. Among other things, current rules prevent a newspaper from owning a TV station in the same city or a network from owning stations that serve more than 35 percent of the national market.” (KCET Now aired January 30, 2004)