• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Christina Meetoo

On Media, Society and Mauritius

  • About me
  • My research and publications

Information

Launch of proceedings “Countering Disinformation: Ensuring an Open and Transparent Infoscape”

18/10/2023 By christina Leave a Comment

On Thursday 5th October 2023, during the Africa Facts Summit 2023, we launched the proceedings of the workshop “Countering Disinformation: Ensuring an Open and Transparent Infoscape” which was held in May 2023 with the support of the Australian High Commission in Mauritius.

Preparing for the official launch
With Africa Check
With Google News Initiative
With Konrad Adenauer Stiftung

We also presented the key findings from the workshop as well as the Pledge on Countering Disinformation which was signed in May by representatives of the 3 main private media houses and of the national TV station.

Participants in the panel discussions held in May 2023 were professionals from the three main private media groups (namely Bernard Delaitre, Director of Le Mauricien, Iqbal Ahmed Khan from La Sentinelle and Prem Sewpaul from DefiMedia), the national broadcaster (Ashok Beeharry from the MBC), regulatory bodies (namely Drudeisha Madhub, Data Commissioner and Trilok Dabeesing from ICTA) and a media trainer/consultant (Jean-Luc Mootoosamy from Media Expertise).

On Friday 13th October 2023, we officially remitted copies of the publication to the Chargée d’Affaires of the Australian High Commission in Mauritius, Her Excellency Mrs Katie Lalor, and to the Senior Political and Public Diplomacy Officer, Mrs Yasmina Hosanoo, at the University of Mauritius.

Roukaya Kasenally, Christina Chan-Meetoo, H.E. Katie Lalor and Yasmina Hosanoo

The full proceedings can be downloaded from: https://bit.ly/countering-disinfo-ebook

The pledge to counter disinformation which was readily signed by media professionals can also be seen at: https://bit.ly/pledge-countering-disinformation

We thank Africa Check for giving us the opportunity to present the proceedings during the Africa Facts Summit 2023 and the Australia High Commission in Mauritius for supporting us in these initiatives.

Filed Under: Information, Mauritius, Policy, Press Tagged With: disinformation, fact-checking, Mauritius, media, Press, university of mauritius

On the subject of Media Regulation in Mauritius

24/11/2021 By christina 2 Comments

Media regulation was debated on 17th November on an MBC TV show called Focus with former journalist and editor-in-chief of L’express-Dimanche, Rabin Bhujun (now director of a company that trains company executives on how to deal with the media), former editor-in-chief of L’express, Raj Meetarbhan (now Senior Adviser at PMO) and Abadallah Goollamallee, a CTI lecturer.

I was asked by MBC journalist Kavin Tapesar for a pre-recorded interview to be included as an insert in the show but it was too short-noticed given that I had much work to do at the time.

Watching the replay of the show prompted me to read again my past papers on the topic from 2011 and 2013. Basically, no progress has been made so far in Mauritius on this issue and what I wrote at the time is still valid.

Here are the papers for those who wish to read through:
– State or Self regulation. The search for common ground in the book Enhancing Democratic Systems: The Media in Mauritius published by Langaa in 2011.

– Ethics in Journalism: Why and How? in the book Ethical Journalism and Gender-Sensitive Reporting, 2013 and republished in Media Ethics and Regulation. Insights from Africa published by Langaa, 2013.

The two commissioned reports which were cited during the show are:

  1. A Press Council for Mauritius? Safeguarding Freedom, Responsibility and Redress for Mauritius and its Media by Mr Kenneth Morgan, former member of the UK Press Council, which was commissioned by the Media Trust in 1998.
  2. Media Law and Ethics in Mauritius. Preliminary Report by Prof Geoffrey Robertson QC, which was commissioned by the government in 2013.

The Robertson report was an extensive 80-page report so people tend to forget that it was only a preliminary version which was released in April 2013. As he wrote in his address to the then PM Navin Ramgoolam in his preamble, his idea was to come back later in the year and have discussions that would help fine-tune his recommendations. He stated that he wanted broad consultations that would have to include multiple stakeholders (such as “media, lawyers and judges, MPs, civil society and members of the public”). This is what he wrote:
It is a large project, but I have done my best to present these provisional conclusions in non-technical language and at reasonable length. They are not set in stone. I hope that the publication of the report will be followed by a period of discussion and debate over its proposals, amongst the media, lawyers and judges, MPs, civil society and members of the public. I will be happy to return later in the year, after considering all responses, to make a final set of legislative proposals.
Unfortunately, no final version was made public as the government probably didn’t like the content of the preliminary report given that they had only envisaged the setting up of a regulatory system for the media whereas the consultant went well beyond this single requirement (more details below). The PTr-led government was very unhappy with the press at the time and regularly alluded to the need to set up a Media Commission to tighten control. This is not the first time a party in power has expressed strong dissatisfaction and threatened to introduce stricter regulations for the media (recall the MMM which was in government after liberalisation of airwaves in 2002) and it is certainly not the last (including the current MSM-led government). Suffice to say that all parties have the same critical attitude to the press when in power and then, magically, become the strongest defenders of the media when in opposition (before becoming staunch critics again when getting back in power, which invariably happens due to the “alternance” in our political configurations).

Interestingly, our local media have rarely (not to say never) advocated for the release of a final version of the Robertson report up to now, nor for its application, as there are some elements which they probably didn’t like as well. They have mostly tended to focus only on the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation albeit without any in-depth reference to the details of such a legislation, using the claim only as a cry of rally against government. Status quo  thus seemed preferred by them with regards to media regulation and laws impacting their operations.

In essence, Robertson made three broad proposals which would have to be introduced in a comprehensive manner for a more balanced and healthy media environment in Mauritius:
  • Review laws that impact media operations such as sedition, defamation, publising false news, contempt of court [an interesting case in this respect being the Dooharika (may he RIP) case where Privy Council overruled a judgement against him and he was represented by Robertson himself], all of which date back to colonial times with sometimes obsolete provisions or fines.
  • Introduce Freedom of Information legislation to ensure transparency and facilitate the work of journalists (and thus review the Official Secrets Act).
  • Introduce media regulation through a national code of ethics for the media and also an institution (a Media Commission) to oversee its application (he suggested revising the mandate of the Media Trust as a possible option).

Rodertson also put emphasis on the need for a comprehensive approach rather than a pieceameal reform:

In my lecture on Developments in Media Law, delivered in the Sir Harilal Vaghjee Memorial Hall, I expressed the view that Mauritius would benefit from a new and comprehensive media law rather than piecemeal reform.

The contents of the report are part of the topics which I teach in a module called Media and Ethics in the Journalism course at the University of Mauritius.

Filed Under: Information, Mauritius, Policy, Press Tagged With: FOI, media ethics, media laws, media regulation, press council, robertson report

My final submission to the ICTA on its proposed amendments to the ICT Act

19/05/2021 By christina 2 Comments

In this blogpost, you will find the link to my final submission to the ICTA on its proposed amendments to the ICT Act. In the last section of my paper, I include my answers (reproduced below) to the specific questions of the ICTA in its Consultation Paper.

 

Click here to access the full text of the analytical paper

Click here to access the PDF format of the Analytical Paper

Summary of questions being released for public consultation

14.1 What are your views on the present approach of self-regulation of social networks by social media administrators themselves where they decide to remove an online content or not based on their own usage policy and irrespective of your domestic law?

Countries around the world face issues concerning circulation of posts which are potentially in breach of their domestic laws on social media platforms. There is, at present, no fully satisfactory response which is proposed or effectively deployed in any democratic country. Only non-democratic countries have recourse to drastic measures aiming to block and/or intercept all of their own citizens’ online communications and social media traffic in an attempt to regulate the same. As a democratic country, Mauritius cannot use methods which would be more suitable for non-democratic regimes.

It is true that the content being circulated online which either targets or is created by Mauritian citizens on social media may be in breach of domestic laws. However, an objective assessment of the extent of such illicit content being circulated needs to be conducted to determine the extent of abuse and/or misuse as already specified in the above paper,

It should also be recalled that social media platforms offer various levels of privacy, meaning that one may categorise the online communication sphere created by these into multiple sub-categories, which can tentatively be broadly listed as follows:

  1. Online national public sphere created by public personalities (prominent members of society such as politicians, leaders of big organisations, community and religious leaders, opinion leaders, etc.) and organisations (whether public or private bodies) who decide to publish their posts on the full “public mode” level. Their content becomes accessible to anyone without the need to be directly connected as “friends” or “friends of friends”. They generally have a large number of followers/friends and their posts can be shared, thereby enabling them to become viral.
  2. Targeted public circles created by specific individuals and bodies who wish to communicate within a semi-restricted sphere, upon invitation.
  3. Private circles whereby an individual or entity communicates only with their friends and whose posts cannot be shared outside of the network of friends.

There are obviously more levels of control which are generally available on some social media platforms in between those three broad categories. Suffice to say that the first level (online national public sphere) is the one which should command the most attention, followed by the second level (targeted public circles) whereas the third level (private circles) may be considered the equivalent of private conversations between private individuals.

Individuals and entities who have large follower bases in the online national public sphere and targeted public circles are the ones who should be more subject to scrutiny as they have the potential for virality and their speech is tantamount to public speech, which may be evaluated against prevailing domestic laws.

As it is, the responsibility for regulating content rests primarily on the social media platforms themselves, the most popular of which are based overseas, thus not directly subjected to domestic laws. These platforms use their own terms of use or community standards to evaluate content (1) when prompted by other users who flag potential issues or (2) when their internal algorithms detect highly sensitive content requiring intervention by the platform.

Intense debates have taken place after the occurrence of major incidents linked to social media accounts of public figures such as former US President Donald Trump. The latter’s account was shut down on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook after the Capitol invasion in January 2021 when he lost elections. Despite multiple posts which contained fake news and racist comments during his presidency, he was only banned from social media platforms when he lost the last elections, thus sparking debates about whether all major public figures around the world would henceforth be liable to similar treatment by the platforms. This was one of the most prominent cases entrusted by Facebook to its own Oversight Board for review. The Facebook Oversight Board published its ruling on 5th May 2021 and upheld the decision but requested that Facebook review the decision within the next six months and also develop clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.

[Read more…] about My final submission to the ICTA on its proposed amendments to the ICT Act

Filed Under: General, Information, Mauritius, New Media, Society, Technology Tagged With: amendments, analysis, ICTA, Mauritius, regulation, social media

Making sense of complexity during the Covid-19 pandemic

02/05/2020 By christina Leave a Comment

I recently came across this long article on The Atlantic:

Why the Coronavirus Is So Confusing. A guide to making sense of a problem that is now too big for any one person to fully comprehend

It is very long but very worth the read as it gives as exhaustive an overview as possible of all the issues related to communication and policy during the pandemic.

In case you want quick reads (but it is better to read the whole thing), I offer:

A detailed summary with highlights

An ‘extreme’ summary

 

 

 

 
Here’s the summary with highlights:

  1. We must distinguish between the virus and the disease which happens within a social context – Earlier instances of the term coronavirus are readily misconstrued. (…) The disease COVID-19 arises from a combination of the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the person it infects, and the society that person belongs to.
  2. There’s a deluge of publications and we need to spot errors – Scientists have published more than 7,500 papers on COVID-19. But despite this deluge, “we haven’t seen a lot of huge plot twists,”. Epidemiologists (…) have suddenly been thrust into political disputes. (…) “Some people are genuinely trying to help, but there’s also a huge amount of opportunism.” (…) Expertise is not just about knowledge, but also about the capacity to spot errors. (…) We hunger for information, but lack the know-how to evaluate it or the sources that provide it. (…) Bergstrom agrees that experts shouldn’t be dismissive gatekeepers.
  3. False expertise come with extreme overconfidence, mostly from male voices – A lack of expertise becomes problematic when it’s combined with extreme overconfidence, and with society’s tendency to reward projected confidence over humility. (…) Through attention, the media reward voices that are outspoken but not necessarily correct. Those voices are disproportionately male.
  4. Modern expertise tends to be deep but narrow and thus requires collaboration – The idea that there are no experts is overly glib. The issue is that modern expertise tends to be deep, but narrow. (…) In a pandemic, the strongest attractor of trust shouldn’t be confidence, but the recognition of one’s limits, the tendency to point at expertise beyond one’s own, and the willingness to work as part of a whole.
  5. To gain trust, provide full statements and do not hide uncertainties – “The fuller statements take longer to explain, but that’s how it is in outbreaks.” Inglesby says. “There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we shouldn’t try to tidy it up.” (…) The impulse to be reassuring is understandable, but “the most important thing is to be as accurate as possible,” Inglesby says. (…) If officials—and journalists—are clear about uncertainties from the start, the public can better hang new information onto an existing framework, and understand when shifting evidence leads to new policy. Otherwise, updates feel confusing.
  6. For audiences, sharing offers agency but we are drowning in too much information – Sharing offers agency. It allows people to collectively make sense of a situation riddled by anxiety and uncertainty. (…) Historically, people would have struggled to find enough information. Now people struggle because they’re finding too much. (…) It does not help that online information channels are heavily personalized and politicized, governed by algorithms that reward certain and extreme claims over correct but nuanced ones.
  7. The default media staccato rhythm intensifies uncertainty and drives people to misinformation – Rosen also argues that the media’s default rhythm of constant piecemeal updates is ill-suited to covering an event as large as the pandemic. “Journalists still think of their job as producing new content, but if your goal is public understanding of COVID-19, one piece of new content after another doesn’t get you there,” (…) Instead, the staccato pulse of reports merely amplifies the wobbliness of the scientific process, turns incremental bits of evidence into game changers, and intensifies the already-palpable sense of uncertainty that drives people toward misinformation.
  8. The audience needs to change: become more information literate and practise fact-checking – If the media won’t change, its consumers might have to. Starbird recommends slowing down and taking a moment to vet new information before sharing it.
  9. Pay attention to how data is gathered and do not treat models as crystal ball – The means of gathering data always complicate the interpretation of those data. (…) The numbers I see say as much about the tools researchers are using as the quantities they are measuring. (…) If measuring the present is hard, predicting the future is even harder. The mathematical models that have guided the world’s pandemic responses have been often portrayed as crystal balls. That is not their purpose.
  10. Prevention is better though not sexy – “There are two lessons one can learn from an averted disaster,” Tufekci says. “One is: That was exaggerated. The other is: That was close.”
  11. The narrative is more complex than we think: we built a world that is prone to pandemics yet not ready to face them –The coronavirus not only co-opts our cells, but exploits our cognitive biases. (…) We crave simple narratives, but the pandemic offers none. (…) And the desire to name an antagonist, be it the Chinese Communist Party or Donald Trump, disregards the many aspects of 21st-century life that made the pandemic possible: humanity’s relentless expansion into wild spaces; soaring levels of air travel; chronic underfunding of public health; a just-in-time economy that runs on fragile supply chains; health-care systems that yoke medical care to employment; social networks that rapidly spread misinformation; the devaluation of expertise; the marginalization of the elderly; and centuries of structural racism that impoverished the health of minorities and indigenous groups. It may be easier to believe that the coronavirus was deliberately unleashed than to accept the harsher truth that we built a world that was prone to it, but not ready for it.
  12. The end of its journey and the nature of its final transformation will arise from our collective imagination and action. And they, like so much else about this moment, are still uncertain.

 

And here’s an ‘extreme’ summary:

  1. We must distinguish between the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease Covid-19 which happens to individuals but within different social contexts.
  2. There has been a deluge of scientific publications and we need to spot errors coming from genuine mistakes or mere opportunism. False expertise comes with extreme overconfidence, specially from male voices.
  3. Modern expertise tends to be deep but narrow and thus requires collaboration.
  4. To gain trust, decision-makers and media need to provide full statements and highlight current uncertainties. The default media staccato, piece-meal, sensationalistic rhythm intensifies uncertainty and mistrust and thus drives people to misinformation.
  5. Sharing offers agency but we are drowning in too much information. The audience needs to change: become more information literate and practise fact-checking.
  6. We must pay attention to how data is gathered and not treat mathematical models as crystal balls. We have no awareness about disasters that were averted such as the Y2K bug because prevention is not sexy but it is still better than cure.
  7. Don’t play the blame game. The narrative is more complex than we think: we all built a world that is prone to pandemics (with onslaughts against nature, health, care, local micro-industry, information, expertise, minorities) yet we’re not ready to tackle their consequences
  8. The end and the nature of the final transformation will be determined by our collective imagination and action which are also still uncertain.

Filed Under: Information, Policy, Society Tagged With: audience, collaboration, complex narrative, coronavirus, covid-19, data, expertise, literacy, media, prevention, trust

La communication en temps de crise

12/04/2020 By christina Leave a Comment

Article paru dans Le Défi Plus le 4 avril 2020

Voici les questions de la journaliste et les réponses originales que j’ai données.

Pourquoi la communication est-elle importante dans la gestion de crise?
Elle est cruciale en temps de crise afin de faire passer les informations sans aucune ambiguïté et rapidement entre tous les groupes d’acteurs concernés et aussi à tout un peuple surtout si on veut que ce peuple collabore pleinement. Il ne s’agit plus ici de dorer ou redorer l’image de quelqu’un ou d’un groupe de personnes mais de s’assurer que la crise soit bien gérée. La communication doit être un outil et pas une fin en soi. Un outil au service de la nation dans le cas présent.

Dans quelle mesure Maurice a-t-elle pu gérer cela correctement?
En ce qu’il s’agit de la communication vers la masse: elle a été en dents de scie avec des ‘ups and downs’. Il y a eu de très bonnes séances de communication et des moins bonnes. Mais, j’ai le devoir de dire que, dans la situation actuelle de crise extrême où nous sommes arrivés, tout conseiller en communication qui n’écoute pas ou ne comprend pas les experts, surtout les scientifiques, ne pourra donc pas faire passer les messages les plus importants. Un communicant n’a qu’une seule fonction en temps de crise: faire passer le message des experts de façon claire. Il ne faut surtout pas tomber dans la facilité.
L’éthique doit primer. La communication en temps de crise n’est PAS une communication de paillette.

Quelles sont les recommandations d’amélioration en ce moment de crise?
Ecouter les experts (médecins, scientifiques, informaticiens, etc.) et ceux qui ont une vue d’ensemble.
Pratiquer la transparence totale, admettre les erreurs, en tirer les leçons, consolider ses propres compétences.
Ne pas oublier que chacune de nos actions d’aujourd’hui vont déterminer l’avenir de notre pays.

Filed Under: Academia, General, Information, Mauritius, Policy, Society Tagged With: Covi, Crisis communication, Crisis management

Fake news: comment les repérer?

09/04/2020 By christina Leave a Comment

J’ai récemment donné deux interviews dans la presse sur les ‘fake news’. Voici les questions des journalistes et les réponses originales que j’ai données.

Pour Amy Kamanah (Article paru dans 5 Plus Dimanche le 29 mars 2020)

Comment les repérer? Comment faire la différence entre une vraie et une fausse nouvelle? Vos conseils

Avant de partager quoi que ce soit et donc potentiellement participer à la distribution de fausses nouvelles ou des nouvelles approximatives, il faut se poser plusieurs questions:

  • Qui est l’auteur original de l’information?
  • Quelles sont ses motivations pour partager cette information?
  • Il y a-t-il une logique solide dans le contenu de l’information?
  • Quelles sont les sources utilisées par l’auteur? Comment ont-elles été obtenues?
  • L’information suscite-t-elle des émotions fortes? Si oui, c’est souvent un signe qu’il s’agit de sensationnalisme pour vous pousser à partager l’information.
  • Il y a-t-il d’autres sources différentes et crédibles qui donnent la même information?
  • Est-ce que les photos soi-disant originales ont déjà été utilisées ailleurs pour un autre sujet ou une date antérieure?

Il faut aussi:

  • Ne pas se fier uniquement au titre, au résumé et à l’illustration car il peut y avoir décalage avec le contenu détaillé. Certains font du sensationnalisme et du clickbait pour gonfler leur audience.
  • Lire et relire attentivement tout le contenu. Comprendre le tout dans le détail.
  • Si l’information cite des sources expertes, chercher les sources scientifiques publiées concernant le sujet et vérifier si ces sources sont vraiment expertes (par exemple leurs publications scientifiques et les articles crédibles qui les citent).
  • Se méfier si on vous demande de partager sous le prétexte que les autorités/médias/experts nous cachent cette information.
  • Se méfier si le texte comporte des fautes et beaucoup de majuscules et des points d’exclamation.

 

 

 

Pour Jane Chamroo (Article paru dans Le Défi Quotidien le 3 avril 2020)

Comment faire pour reconnaître les Fake news? 

Il faut se poser de multiples questions. Si l’information suscite des émotions, il faut s’en méfier car les ‘fake news’ cherchent surtout à créer de l’émotion et donc l’impulsion de repartager l’information tout de suite. Il faut se demander qui est l’auteur de l’information et quelles sont ses motivations potentielles. Ensuite, il faut lire et relire le contenu pour en comprendre tous les éléments. Il ne faut surtout pas lire uniquement les titres ou les résumés qui peuvent être trompeurs car certains médias les utilisent pour du ‘clickbait’ et cherchent surtout à gonfler leur audience. Il faut aussi se demander quelles sont les sources utilisées pour écrire l’article et comment l’information a été obtenue. Idéalement, on doit également contre-vérifier l’information en la croisant avec d’autres sources et d’autres médias.

 

Y a t-il des techniques en particulier pour être un fact-checker ?

Oui, nous avions d’ailleurs organisé un atelier de fact-checking avec Africa Fact Check l’an dernier pour une vingtaine de journalistes. Il y a des méthodes et des outils pour vérifier les informations de différents types que ce soit des chiffres, des images ou des vidéos. Par exemple, on peut retracer la source originale d’une photo avec des outils tels que TinEye ou RevEye pour savoir si elle n’est pas juste une reprise d’une vieille photo pour illustrer un pseudo-événement contemporain.

Comment lutter contre les fake news ? 

C’est une lutte importante mais très difficile car l’être humain adore partager des informations y compris la rumeur depuis la nuit des temps et les réseaux sociaux ne font qu’amplifier ce phénomène en rendant les choses virales très rapidement. Il faut donc que les plateformes aient un meilleur contrôle de la situation, ce qui est loin d’être le cas aujourd’hui en dépit de leurs efforts en ce sens. Le danger c’est d’aller vers l’autre extrême qui est celui de la censure et du politiquement correct au détriment de la critique intelligente et de l’humour qui sont bien nécessaires dans une société libre. Je crois que la responsabilité doit donc être partagée avec tous les acteurs principaux concernés: les plateformes, les médias producteurs de contenus, les décideurs politiques mais aussi et surtout les citoyens. Il y a un gros travail de ‘media literacy’ à faire. Il faut s’éduquer à une bonne hygiène informationnelle tout comme nous prônons une bonne hygiène alimentaire.

Y a t-il des outils gratuits en ligne pour identifier les Fake News ?

Oui, il y a bon nombre d’organisations qui se spécialisent dans la détection des ‘fake news’. On peut citer par exemple FactCheck.org, AFP Fact Check, PolitiFact, Les Décodeurs du journal Le Monde et Africa Fact Check entra autres.

Quels effets, selon vous, peuvent avoir les Fake news sur la population ? (surtout avec l’hystérie liée au coronavirus)

Les ‘fake news’ peuvent créer de l’angoisse, mener des gens à prendre des décisions irrationnelles, semer la panique, créer de la méfiance voire la violence entre les groupes ou et même déstabiliser une société.

Filed Under: Information, Mauritius, New Media, Press, Society Tagged With: fact-checking, fake news, misinformation, social media

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Launch of proceedings “Countering Disinformation: Ensuring an Open and Transparent Infoscape”
  • Émission Radio One du 13 février 2023: La Question se pose
  • Démocratie augmentée pour une transition écologique juste
  • On the subject of Media Regulation in Mauritius
  • A Supreme Court Judgement deems the offence of causing annoyance in the ICT Act to be “hopelessly vague”

Recent Comments

  • christina on On the subject of Media Regulation in Mauritius
  • Shakill Soobratee on On the subject of Media Regulation in Mauritius
  • christina on Discovering the beauty of Rodrigues
  • Eddy Young on Discovering the beauty of Rodrigues
  • IFEX Africa Brief (May 2021): Visions of press freedom obscured, LGBTQI+ rights falter, an icon tells her story - iSPEAK on My final submission to the ICTA on its proposed amendments to the ICT Act

Archives

  • October 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2022
  • November 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • March 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • March 2016
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • April 2014
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • October 2012
  • August 2011
  • September 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006

Copyright © 2025 · Genesis Sample On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in