NBC Correspondent Received $30K for Speech Attacking Sen. Edwards ...
Dear Friend:
This spring, NBC chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski took $30,000 from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to address its Business EXPO 2007. During his talk, Miklaszewski attacked a prominent presidential candidate.
As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz pointed out in 2002, professional journalists accepting fees for speaking engagements is widely frowned upon by the media and a "number of news organizations including, ABC and NBC, [have] banned the practice."
Just last year, Media Matters for America noted the apparent conflict of interest and violation of NBC's ban on paid speaking gigs when Chris Matthews received "tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for delivering speeches to corporate interest groups." Controversy surrounding Matthews' speaking fees prompted then MSNBC president Rick Kaplan to clarify that NBC policy prohibited anchors from personally accepting speaking fees and anyone who did so "would risk being fired."
But as The Providence Journal reported, Jim Miklaszewski not only took $30,000 from the Chamber of Commerce in apparent violation of his employer's policy on paid speaking engagements, the NBC correspondent then proceeded to call presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) a "loser" for attempting to defend a pricey haircut.
It's reasonable to assume that John Edwards' economic policies -- his focus on poverty and health care and the growing gap between rich and poor, and his proposed solutions to these problems -- aren't very popular at the Chamber of Commerce. Edwards, for example, has said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for his health care proposal, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lists making the Bush tax cuts permanent first among its tax policy priorities. And in 2006, the U.S. Chamber gave nearly five times as much money to Republicans as to Democrats.
Put simply, an NBC correspondent took $30,000 from the business lobby to give a speech -- then, during the speech, he attacked a candidate whose policies the lobby opposes. This is deeply unethical, to say the least.
As Edwards embarks on his poverty tour this week, it's fitting we call upon the media to stop their endless stream of personal, negative, and often absurd attacks against progressives and return their focus to where it belongs: the issues. As a respected and influential journalist, Miklaszewski has a reputation to uphold as a serious and objective source of information on air and off. Calling a presidential candidate a "loser" over a haircut would be absurd enough. Doing so after taking $30,000 from special interests opposed to that candidate is scandalous.
For a journalist to make such comments is irresponsible -- to be paid to make them is inexcusable.
I'm urging you to please contact NBC and ask it to address Miklaszewski's apparent violation of their policy on paid speaking engagements. Let NBC officials know you think the public deserves a meaningful debate on ideas and policies, not an endless litany of negative anecdotes and personal attacks. Demand that NBC make public its full ethics policy for reporters. Holding networks and journalists like NBC and Miklaszewski accountable for their actions will help raise the bar and bring about more quality coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Thank you so much for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Jamison Foser,
Managing Director
Media Matters for America
More on this important issue ...
- OpenLeft.com -- Buckraking at NBC? (CLICK HERE)
- Media Matters -- The Same Old Story, Same Old Act (CLICK HERE)
- Think Progress: Matthews received more than $35,000 in speaking fees from Republican-leaning trade associations in apparent violation of NBC policy (CLICK HERE)
P.S. Media Matters relies on your support and activism. Consider making your tax-deductible contribution today by clicking here!
So wrong on so many levels - Jim has shown a definate bias and lack of thought - sounding more and more like a Republicant . . .
I wrote the following e-mail to every NBC contact I could find:
Jim Miklaszeski took $30,000 to speak before a partisan Chamber Group at a Business Expo 2007 and attacked Edwards for the “$400 haircut” – it is outrageous that a representative of NBC NEWS should be involved in such cheap partisan politics in a Presidential Campaign AND accepting MONEY in violation of NBC POLICY!!! I expect that if Jim had attacked Bush for wasting HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS and thousands of American LIVES it would have NOT been tolerated by NBC. Is NBC taken the FOX approach and embraced the “Fair and Bogus” marketing plan? – NBC should reach higher . . .Signed by me . .
May not help but silience is acceptance . . .
Well, at least, he didn't force a taxpayer-funded university to fork out $50000 for a speech on poverty. Guess Jim has some ethics after all unlike Edwards.
And how many times does this claim have to be debunked before it finally dies?
$50k, paid for by ticket sales, you know, people who WANTED to hear him speak, and paid their own money to do so.
How does Edwards force anyone to do anything? UCLA (I think?) decided they wanted to have him on campus. Most of his fees were paid by students who VOLUNTARILY attended through their admission charges.
Please find me some information on how Edwards "forced" the school to do anything. Further, please provide his methods of "force." After you finish both of those, please tell us why you are ok with a supposedly unbiased newsman being paid to make a political speech and before you talk about "liberal bias," please provide a reporter who, on his own time, has trashed a conservative candidate.
I will await your reply eagerly.
The media should not be owned by corporations with an agenda(GE). This money should be returned and a retraction made by Miklaszewski. He then should be removed from the airways. A trust has been violated for money, this is corruption.
But it's just the free markets it doing it's thing man. Don't fuss capitalism is best for everyone.
I am being totally sarcastic. Just like Republicans and Democrats have abandoned ethics, journalists have as well. The common factor of course is money.
When Ronald Reagan dissolved the Fairness Doctrine with a stroke of his signing statement pen, and the language "in the public interest" disappeared from the licensing guidelines for broadcasters, the first bumps in the road were Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh. It was ALWAYS the conservative agenda to own speech by corporate power, so the NBC story doesn't surprise me at all. As long as we have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Chris Matthews we should welcome Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Al Franken, and the rest of the Left. It was always supposed to be "fair and balanced", but lately it is decidedly right leaning and the country is ready to listen to some common sense again. We stopped being scared a while ago.
This is so preposterous, it strains credulity. But then, we're talking about the network where GE President Jack Welch spent Election Night 2000 in the NBC News control room ordering the news people to call the election for Bush long before it was the right thing to do.
There is something wrong calling Edwards a loser for getting a $400 haircut?
For that, he IS! As is anyone else who does similar.
Seems like the post is only to whine about a little name calling... would it have become a post if there wasn't a shot at Edwards in it? What's the issue... the cheapshot or exchange of cash? If it were a cheapshot at Bush would it have made it on this site?
Please explain to me why John Edwards is a a "loser" for getting a $400 haircut. And while you are at it, please tell me if these things make people "losers"- flying first class, buying a very expensive car or rare gems, wearing Armani suits, etc.
FDR lived in a mansion and wore clothes far more expensive than those affordable for 99% of Americans- was he a loser, too? Did his ability to purchase expensive items mean he lacked empathy for the poor?
I wonder, if a person needs to have his wife cut his hair because he can't afford $16 to go to Hair Cuttery, does he consider the person who goes to Hair Cuttery a "loser?" Does the guy who takes mass transit consider the guy who can afford to drive himself to work a "loser?" I'm really trying to understand the mindset at work here (without going to the obvious solution- JEALOUSY.) Help me out here.
He is a BIG loser for sending the bills to his campaign instead of paying for them out of his millions. Folks like you send him hard-earned money that Edwards spends on haircuts. Suit yourself.
THis is not extraordinary that his campaign paid for his haircuts. There are all sorts of things that campaigns pay for that wouldn't be considered "regular" business expenses and all, but then again, when you're on the road 24/7 for more than a year, things are slightly different.
Do you feel the same way about Romney?
Campaigns routinely pay for suits, makeup, haircuts, travel, whatever. Big deal? And if you are calling Edwards a "loser" because his supporters are paying for this stuff through their donations, that makes no sense either.
I love how Conservatives rant and rave about how they should have the right to spend their money the way they want to, and it's nobody's damn business what they do with it, but they are always mocking liberals for the way they chose to spend THEIR money. Well, here's some more mocking fuel- I'm going to Edwards's website to send him some more money. Thanks for the unsolicited advice anyway.
Nah, he's not a loser for getting a $400 haircut. He's rich. He can afford it, so why the heck not?
It's not whining about it when MMFA keeps pointing it out, it's talking about how the media keeps avoiding talking about Edwards the candidate, instead they talk of Edwards the haircut getter.
Before you post, please read the "About Us" section. This would not be on MMFA if it was about a conservative, because this site is about misinformation that benefits conservatives.
A man who makes his paycheck on a basis of impartiality took $30,000 to insult a progressive candidate. It's outside the responsibilities of a journalistic organization, and it benefits conservatives. That's why it's on there, and you shouldn't need to be told that.
So, is Mitt a loser for his $300 in make-up?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4982.html
I'm taking a guess this story won't have the legs of the $400 haircuts.
Nope. Mitt isn't either. It's part of doing business on the campaign trail. This isn't a big deal, and neither was Edwards' haircut, until the right wing trash talkers got in touch with that one and ran with it for days on end. And still are now.
Blue Healer...
This is site for CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION and HATE SPEECH.
Maybe you should click on the link that says "About Us."
This will probably get deleted because it is off topic, but what do you think of Romney and his makeup jobs and why, assuming, Edwards's haircut is news, is Romney's $300 makeup job/consulting, not?
When you are campaigning on raising taxes to "help" the poor, then profit big bucks for speaking and spend an abnormal amount of money on a frivolous haircut. It kind of makes you seem disingenuous.
It's like on thanksgiving, all the nets roll out the camera crews to the local shelter to show their compassion for the poor, while scarfing down on Rachael Ray's latest creations in the background. They only wish they could help.
It's the same reason some people are sick of Al Gore, it's the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.
Were it not for the politics of resentment, I don't think there would be a Republican Party.
Honestly, Republicans resent anything that helps another. Republicans think they acquired everything all by themselves, that the interconnected efforts of their fellow man had no bearing on their personal outcome.
In other words, democracy is not an individual act it is a collective endeavor. This notion of rugged individualism, this every man for himself ideal, is at odds with democratic principles of cooperation, participation and empathy. Seldom is responsibility a burden to be carried alone. Responsibility is a need to be fulfilled, on behalf of society, by the most highly adapted person or persons.
For example, Martin Luther King didn't decide one day that he alone should be the vocal leader of the civil rights movement. No, his was a voice that resonated with people and he was elevated to leadership by people who desperately needed him.
It's an error of attribution that decrees self-discipline is the sole determining factor of fulfillment or ruin. Situational factors such as illness, accidents or plain bad luck also guide outcomes and that is why offering a hand up is the American way.
Are you consciously trying to oversimplify and villify the argument that everyone should the same misery? It's the great argument for socialism and ultimately communism. We're all incapable of pulling ourselves up, so we need the government in all its efficiency to lift us up. Then we're whole again.
Edwards admits on his own website that a large amount of former welfare recipients don't have jobs. I guess they'll continue taking a portion of my money and throwing at people that will never get out of the program.
I'm not talking about disabled people, or children. The fact is that a great number of people are poor because of the choices they make, and continue to make.
I remember a recent episode of Oprah featured a man who was the center of a documentary. They followed him for months and then gave him $100K. He's now in more debt than before he got the money.
Edwards isn't dumb enough to think that by giving people more money, that they will be better off. Heck, most poor people are better off than the middle class because of their insane (mostly credit card) debt. He knows that as long as he appears to care, and gives enough people enough handouts, he like most democrats, can secure the electorate.
Oops, didn't edit out my original thought in the first sentence...
should read:
Are you consciously trying to make the argument that everyone should share the same misery?
It is predicated in any contract, in this case the social contract between we the people and the government we own, that all signatorees fulfill their responsibilities to the gaurantee. Liberal policy flows from the broader context of participation, cooperation and empathy. The success or failure of programs that promote the general welfare hinge upon the earnest effort of people to help themselves.
The very idea of dependency is a slap in the face to every salt of the earth, hard-working laborer who toils to make ends meet. Go ahead thrash the tenets of good government, but it's shameful, and frankly un-American, to hold fellow working citizens in such low esteem.
You are blind beyond belief. It's those "fellow working citizens" you talk about, that pay for those who choose not to work, but instead, game the system year after year.
What incentive do you give people to work, when they can get it for free from Uncle Sam?
Democrats want to solve the problem by creating new jobs for the poor. The catch is, those "jobs" are completely subsidized by the taxpayer. It's called income re-distribution.
Instead of cleaning up the system, and getting help to those who really need it, you would rather support someone who promises to make the system more bloated, inefficient and wasteful? All on YOUR dime?
You're an idiot.
Putting people to work, even publicly funded work, to fix our ailing infrastructure is bad for America?
Bet New Orleans would have loved to have better levees. Bet the steam pipe that blew up in NYC didn't have to cause a panic.
Get people to work on repairing the decay, get money circulating to all, instead of percolating to up to the wealthy.
Anyway, the Republican era of let's prove government is bad, non-responsive, non-transparent, unaccountable to the people style of public disservice is drawing to a close.
You guys made your point, you hate government of any sort because representative, secular government is beyond your comprehension. We get it; Republicans love authoritarian theocracy, just be honest and replace your motto with:
Profit first
You’re alone
Militant diplomacy
Goliath wins
Intelligent design
And change the GOP label while you're at it. Try, RAT. Republican Authoritarian Theocrats.
Not sure how anyone could understand that inane rant. However, since we're picking out mottos, how about a new Democrat one? Take your pick:
We'll spend your money, so you don't have to.
Wealth re-distribution, so easy a jacka$$ can do it.
Got a problem? blame Halliburton.
Bush is a moron...(who beat us twice).
If it weren't for a blowjob...
We voted for the war...
We should get out of Iraq and into Darfur.
We breathe, therefore we make global warming.
Give us your tired, your poor...ah screw it, we just want your vote.
9/11 was an inside job.
Working hard is for losers. Let us write you a check. What? No bank account? We'll give you a Simon gift card, how's that?
I'm not sure why anyone cares how much makeup someone wears or how much they pay for a haircut, but I am concerned when people think that the poor are getting handouts and they just sit on their sofas watching big tvs. What makes you think the rich don't get handouts? How many movie stars pay for the fancy clothes and jewelry they wear to the academy awards? How many congressmen have to wait in the ER for hours before someone will fix their broken bones or repair a perforated colon. I bet they don't. We have an entire country that thinks that the poor get handouts. Hey, try feeding a family of six on $258.00 a month. That doesn't include little essentials like diapers, toilet paper, soap, laundry detergent etc. Oh, wait, they have to go to a laundramat to do their clothes at $1.50 a load or more. Think how many loads a family of six might have. Oh, maybe not so much, since they are soooo lazy and they don't have to work so maybe there are no clothes. Oh, wait, we find that the oldest boy is in high school and wearing fancy tennis shoes...probably stolen? No, the lazy mother went out and cleaned houses for days so her son could achieve a certain pride in having a nice pair of shoes to play basketball...She wants him to get a good education, better than hers, so she won't have to worry that he will be like her...uneducated and no job other than cleaning. Her mother was the maid for a nice couple but died at the age of 40 of breast cancer. They had no insurance and didn't know what to do. Yeah, a drain on society. I bet that congressmen and senators don't have to worry about healthcare, social security and trying to live on $800-1000 a month when they retire. Those old people just sucking the life out of social security. A lot of poor people get paid under the table. Ok, but how much? $200 a week...Yeah, maybe but if they get food stamps they have to show some income. the boy has to go to school, work part-time and achieve in school in order to get to college. Who will help him...the school counselor? No, she is only interested in a chosen few. Why should she think about a no-account loser "white" boy when she can help that tall handsome African American boy that comes from a better family! Color doesn't matter, does it? Poor is Poor. But I tell you, if we don't find a way to help the poor which are growing by leaps and bounds to find a better life and a better way to live. We will have a society of Squires and Serfs. The rich will live off the meager serfs and the serfs will only retailiate when they get tired of living.
You know, this is what makes America great! We are such a bunch of idiots that don't look at the whole picture and naturally assume things that don't matter when the things that do matter get overshadowed so we don't pay attention. Shame on all of us. What we need is a bunch of poor, uneducated, unfed, unhealthy families to march on Washington and give the government their "tired and poor" up close and personal. We are making a big mistake letting these rich people make up the laws and give the breaks to the wrong groups. The rich are touted and given every opportunity. If Bill Gates came to your town to speak, he would be paid, housed and fed as if he were king, but if that lady house keeper came to your town, she would have to pay over $100 a night to stay in a hotel and go to restaurants for meals and no one would want to listen to her, pay for her to explain her plight because no one wants to know why she is where she is. People love success, they love the good looking rich people. No matter what they do, they can rape, they can kill, they can TORTURE, but they have the money, thus the power. What is wrong with this picture?
Here we go again. Righties who are deliberately missing the point of the thread. Partisanship does lead one to be obtuse.
The myth that the media is liberal is exposed once again, as well as the fact that a journalist is taking money to basically trash a candidate that the money changers oppose.
Well said, Mary.
No, Mary. These guys are being thoroughly consistent in their political world-view. See, in the Republican Authoritarian Theocracy, RAT to be brief, Goliath wins.
"I'm urging you to please contact NBC and ask it to address Miklaszewski's apparent violation of their policy on paid speaking engagements."
Will do- thanks MM for pointing out the abuse of position of this journalist and others.
It's crappola.
I will do too.
In fact, I've already done.
This is a shameful moment for Miklaszewski. If he's a man of any personal integrity, he'll resign.
I sent the following email to Steve Capus, president of NBC News:
Dear Mr. Capus,
I have just learned that this spring, NBC chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski took $30,000 from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to address its Business EXPO 2007. During his talk, Miklaszewski attacked a prominent presidential candidate, John Edwards.
At a time when the objectivity of the mainstream media is questioned by a frustrated and unhappy viewership, acts such as this (not to mention David Gregory 's cavorting with Carl Rove!) are driving more and more viewers to other news sources such as PBS, BBC, and the internet for fair and accurate reporting.
It is my understanding that Miklaszewski's behavior is in violation of NBC rules and is grounds for firing.
If you are unwilling to adhere to that policy, may I suggest as a minimum, that Miklaszewski receive a public rebuke and be required to return the ill-gotten speaking fee.
Nice one Jorge.
is media matters upset that NBC isnt sticking to bashing everyone and everything not liberal? boo hoo
Why don't you provide some evidence to back up your patently absurd and infantile remark?
There are a couple of things that were not covered completely in MMFA's post that may shed some light on this whole thing.
1) Was Miklaszewski paid or did the money go to a charity (ala Tweety Mathews)? If the fee went to charity, is that really against NBC policy?
2) Was his whole speech a slam at Edwards or was the above just a lame attempt to make a joke in front of an audience that would accept that type of humor. No video clip or transcript was provided to know the context of the remark.
All that aside, from the information provided by MMFA, its time to Imus Miklaszewski!!!!!!
Here is a link to the original newspaper article about the conference. It sounds like it was just a side comment, the reporter didn't seem to take it very seriously. He also noted that Miklasewski called Hilary a "tough cookie". Mik wasn't even the original scheduled speaker. The conference had advertised that David Gregory was to appear, but changed a few weeks before the conference.
http://www.projo.com/business/content/projo_20070502_bizexpo.2ca96e61.html
John Edwards is an ambulance chasing, idiotic pretty boy with policies as vacuous as any "progressive" in the current Democrap lineup. He has no specific moral connection to anyone that is "poor". Once he has purchased you votes with his big-government pablum, he'll have no specific reason to remember the poor and the downtrodden.
What is defined as "progressive" by the hard left? Further expansion of government ineptness into those aspects of our lives where they have no Constitutional authority to tread. Social Security, healthcare, USRDA, DEA, OSHA, CSPC, and other illegal agencies have no specific basis in the Constitution. Yet the only way "progressives" can get into office is to appeal to the lowest common denominator, white trailer trash, unwed welfare mom crowd who glom onto anything these "progressives" feel emboldened to steel from others.
Jim Miklaszewski is unethical for taking cash for a speech? Then what does that make Congressman William Jefferson? Can you say $90,000 in literally cold, hard cash?
This post is so pathetic that it doesn't even warrant a response.
However, I will say that what William Jefferson did is in no way remotely relevant to a prominent journalist taking money from a partisan organization in which he criticized a candidate running for a major political office.
The conservatives can't defend Mislazeseski as an independent hournalist, so they try to justify his actions by attacking Edwards.
CONS have another major hole in their mythical argument of a "liberal" media so they create strawmen to avoid debating the matter at hand.
So I guess you in no way benefit from the clean water act, FDA regulaltions, FCC regulations, OSHA regulations, DEA regulations and a plethara of other governmental programs or agencies who provide oversight so you are safe? What about the G.I Bill which allows folks who serve their country to attend college? Oh yeah, the G.I Bill must be in the small print at the bottom of the Constitution. People like you use government everday and benefit from it but always want to bite the hand that feeds you. You are the same kind of person who screams that you hate government intervention but when something happens you are the first to say "they need to do something about that". Like it or not, a country of 300 million people cannot function without government. If you don't like it move to Somalia, I hear they really don't have any government right now. Paradise is only a plane tickey away my friend.
Pitch perfect response.
Connection to poor? Hmm, how about, well, his family? You know, he grew up lower class in NC, and his dad was a mill worker for his whole life. While not being "dirt" poor he wasn't well off by any means. You rail against Edwards, and yet he espouses the "American" dream that many on the right talk about all of the time. He paid for his own education, got a law degree, and then represented poor people in civil trials against companies that were negligent. I'm sure you criticize him, but if you ever needed a lawyer, you'd be first one to call him, or someone like him, up.
I live in NC, and last I checked, the "trailer trash" as you put it, around here, all vote republican. Just so long as 2 men don't kiss and they keep promising no abortions, you'll have your base.
Your post is pathetic, and actually carries little or no value, or facts for that matter.
Do you even see anyone on here defending Jefferson? I would bet a fair amount of my yearly income on here, that most, if not all liberal posters on this site would not defend for a second what Jefferson has done or is accused of doing. And see, that's the difference. We actually know right from wrong, and don't defend our "guys" just because they are democrats. Jefferson took a lot of money in bribes apparently, he should quit, and I'm sure he'll be convicted, and he should serve whatever time he gets in a federal jail.
Aside from that point, your argument holds no water because a so-called independent journalist who takes money for a speaking engagement, and then trashes a candidate then loses all credibility (unless he works for Fox) within the public eye, because he is perceived as being very biased. Jefferson took money to futher himself, and is going to pay the price.
Again, the differences and nuances of either of these 2 cases seem to be lost on the less intelligent of us on here (psst, that includes you Mr./Mrs. LifeLibertyProperty - love that moniker by the way, shows me a lot about who you are).
Yep, John Edwards is an "ambulance chaser" who went after innocents like the people who built the faulty pool drain that almost beheaded a little girl. Damn those evil, money grubbing attorneys like Edwards, who prey on big businesses who only want to provide dangerous products to an unsuspecting public.
Everyone hates lawyers, till they need one.
Edwards is a millionaire- a SELF-MADE millionaire, unlike George W Bush, who never held a job that wasn't handed to him, never accomplished one constructive thing in his lifetime, never lifted a finger to do anything if he could hire someone to do it for him, and actively avoided learning anything that might disrupt his shallow, chimp's-eye view of the universe. Yeah, that Edwards is really worth snarking on.
One correction: the girl wasn't almost beheaded, she was partially disembowelled. The accident was similar to the one described here.
By my math, Jim, that speaker's fee will give you money enough for 750 $400 haircuts. Let's have them give you all the haircuts at once, and maybe they'll dig deep enough into your head to find a brain. Jim, you are so Vitter.
Stories like this should be of concern to both sides of the political spectrum. When the News is compromised by corporate interests the potential for harm affects everyone.
Just because corporate control is currently pushing to support Republican policies there is no assurances that it will always do as the Conservatives want. Many Conservatives want to restrict immigration, but many corporations want to open the borders to ensure a supply of labor. What happens when the News organizations start spinning immigration issues, printing false stories, and controlling what people hear?
To take another issue, many food companies are resisting required Federal food safety checks (which are being supported by the Administration - see Beef Testing). If corporate control of the News Media chooses to not report stories of people dying from bad food or people dying from bad pharmaceuticals (or just lying about the cause of such deaths) then people are at risk. I assume even Conservatives eat food and take medicine.
When the News Media is controlled and directed by corporate interests the potential for harm to individuals becomes real. Maintaining your partisan attitudes is just stupid. If the News Media had a Liberal slant (which it does not) and it was distorting and lying about stories I would be just as upset and I would assume Media Matters would still be in operation.
Interesting what google turns up wrt the Mik-ster.