Better and more profitable media

By Blanca de Lizaur, PhD, MA, BA, Content specialist.


Redimensionador de tamaño de fuente


Redimensionador de tamaño de fuente

Multimedia For media people Para: Videos

No transaction without TRUST; no trust without evidence of VALUES –But WHOSE values…?

Read Time:20 Minute, 36 Second

1. The 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer [summary regarding Spain] [global summary in English] , the conclusions of which are presented in this video, shows a major drop in credibility and trust, towards almost all institutions, in practically all of the countries included in the study. That said, what’s new…?

Let us examine a few press headlines from the last three years, chosen at random, to understand what set off this crisis in trust, and the way it is affecting the media:

What are these headlines all about? About many institutions’ corruption, which has quite negatively affected their credibility, and therefore their efficiency, yes. But also: About the moral revolution that exploded in 1968 and intensified after 1995, that is reversing itself in a way that is both inevitable and profound.


2. …And it is very important to bear this in mind in order to make viable decisions regarding all kinds of communications media contents. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We’ll talk about this later, after having listened to the president of Edelman, presenting his conclusions regarding the global study on trust, 2012:


Enjoy the  video that motivated this article (partial transcription  follows):

Edelman CEO’s conclusions merit a word-by-word transcription.

In order to save our readers time, we start our transcription at minute 2:28:

“Public relations-and-communications need to help restore trust. And in Edelman we are avid  students of trust, and ‘know that trust in certain institutions –now: certainly Government, but also business…, has recently reached historic lows. So there is the need for better communications and better engagement in terms of rebuilding trust. And in order to do that, we have to recognize that also the world has changed; that the trust doesn’t just rest in traditional institutions: It’s moved away from there. Authority’s been dispersed, [and] now rests with regular people, in the networks, amongst friends, and families, and coworkers… So we need to explain that the nature of trust has changed.

We have to help explain that, what’s important in life to many of the people that we survey, is not just about making money, but is also about doing good.

So we would argue that good business is about profits, …plus purpose [people discover it in our actions], plus engagement [the interest spurred in people by our purpose and actions].

And finally, we have to help companies realize that the media landscape has changed as well, as media is no longer constructed in the way it once was. You now have traditional media, you have hypermedia, you have social media, and you have company’s own owned media… And if companies can [wrap over…?] with that –understand there is (sic) four leaves in the traditional clover, they will be communicating better, and more powerfully, and with greater resonance.

The future scope of communications is to engage. But it has to engage on these principles I told you about earlier; so it has to be transparent. There is no room for spin any longer; there has to be a real openness, and accountability within business, about in-corporate communications, by one.

Point two: It has to embrace the social world. Now, it is not to say that “everything has to happen in the social media”, but social media is transforming business, and [we need] to understand [that] social business is important to corporate communications.

Third: It has to talk to regular people, it has to listen differently, it has to participate in the conversation, and it has to do that all the time; it can’t switch on, and switch off, at will or at random. It’s to do with being there the whole time, participating.

Fourth: It has to help move businesses from this whole [idea] of compliance –where compliance was “enough,” to “compliance is not enough”. It has to be about values: Real leadership principles need to be established.

And finally, it has to make sure that in the companies that it devices on, the communications is about policy as well as about communications, is about actions as well as words.”

Because only through doing this, will we be able to restore trust –we add.


3. Until this point, it would appear that everything is clear and obvious. But it is not so.

If we listen closely to the president of Edelman, and we read the articles on its website, we are left with the impression that the values they are concerned about, regard political agendas, not those that the majority of citizens care about.

And this poses great challenges when trying to apply his conclusions. But to gain a better understanding, let’s do a little background history:

About a little more than fifteen years ago –around 1995-2000, when internet had just been born (1993)–, a large number of publishing and media conglomerates, reformulated their business models. Until that time, their “primary clients” –at least officially– had been their receivers (their readers, radio listeners, television viewers, movie audiences…). And the products they hoped would satisfy them, were the media’s own –ones which allow them to meet specific societal needs through news, stories, courses, songs, etc.

In response to political and economic groups’ intense pressure regarding contents, however, media redefined…:

Their receivers, as “secondary” clients.

And their advertisers, business partners, the authorities, political parties and activist groups

(the so-called “stakeholders” or interest groups), as “primary” clients.

And they did so in spite of the evidently “different from the majority” nature of those groups

–that is: in spite of the fact that they are, not only a minority, but furthermore, and to some degree,

discriminatory of, or the opposite of the majority’s lifestyle, tastes, values, ideas and beliefs–.

But, what alternatives did the media have, if –for example, in a typical women’s magazine– the reader, paying the cover price, provides less than 5% of the publisher’s revenue; while the advertisers make up the remaining 95%, or more? And what else could they do –the media asked themselves– if organized activists, supported by authorities and advertisers, could close down their businesses, or make operating them extremely difficult…? Who can hold out against a hostile Take-Over Bid (TOB) on the stock market, or an endless and biased series of official inspections, or problematic bank operations (that do not proceed smoothly, but encounter all kinds of difficulties, asset freezing and errors), or slander and threats of legal action, or boycotts orchestrated to lay siege to the media…?

This transformed their core commodity –which is their reason for being and existing–, into a mere “advertising container” and logically redefined their editorial policies. …And what’s worse: This altered their contents, making them useless, irrelevant, false, biased, alien, unpleasant, or even antagonistic to the reader.

The reader, reviled, became even more repelled –let’s recall that at the time, media sales (in general) had already been dropping for years–; and so this business shift finally broke the tacit alliance of loyalty between producers/editors/disseminators, and their public. This has even gotten to the point that nobody even thinks, that advertisements in media –for example in a magazine– , should be chosen in order to appeal to and be useful to its readers, who become upset and “leave” when they encounter objectionable, inappropriate, fraudulent, exasperating, excessive or hostile advertising in the magazine pages, streets…

What’s more: When deciding which advertisements to publish, everything is outweighed by the interests of the stakeholders, who close off their “private reserves” [the media they use to disseminate their advertising] to any brands that do not comprise part of their catalogue or that of their political or financial partners, or that are not friendly or supportive of their own (that compete with them in some way), although this renders the magazine (or other media) contents even more odious or useless to its readers.

Not to mention that media campaigns against people, businesses and institutions, are usually a response to these same agenda interests, worsening the problem.

Furthermore: The merger of media, publishing, television companies, etc. that led to the consolidation of today’s media conglomerates, homogenized contents so much, that it became impossible to distinguish between them.

All the more because the homogenization has gotten to the point that nobody dares disseminate relevant information that is not also being disseminated by others. This happened, for example, in the case of the international approval of the Codex Alimentarius, about which almost no major media source disseminated full and objective information, in spite of its importance.

Perhaps some media sources vary the political nuancing of their contents, but certainly not the list of events they all disseminate: The room available for “freedom” –as we have said for years– has become terribly small… Attempts have been made to make up for this with ever more aggressive and invasive marketing strategies, with great technological extravagance, gathering ever larger groups of investors and growing multimillion dollar investments ─…which are more and more difficult to coordinate and recover.

When media people complain because the public is “ungrateful and disloyal, and goes with whoever gives them a croissant” or “buys” them in some way or another (…not with quality contents), I ask myself: But, didn’t the media betray their receivers first, even if many were forced by circumstances to do so…?

The good thing about all this is: If the information they disseminate were true, useful, timely, pleasant and relevant to their public –and faithfully, pleasantly and positively reflected their receivers’ values, ideas and beliefs–, the media would still be found appealing, and would not be losing their public since they would be fulfilling the social function they were created for.

And they would be profitable. The scandalous and aggressive political tract Le Canard Enchainé, provides an example of enduring success and profitability, by:

  • being faithful to its editorial line (the spirit in which it was created),
  • refusing to include advertisements –its cover price covers all its expenses–, and
  • employing their reporters as regular staff, with all the corresponding legal rights and privileges.

Internet has neither diminished its public nor its credibility, and power groups continue to fear it. And not because of how scandalous it is, but rather because it has kept the readers’ trust, remaining faithful to its values “…in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, attacked or applauded, with good or bad sales records, … til death do us part”.

Further proof –to give an example that is the opposite of the previous one in terms of ideology–, is the international box-office success  of the Spanish documentary La Última Cima [ The Last Summit, review],  which narrates the life of an ordinary priest who died recently; or the fact that Spain’s televised Sunday Mass, regularly reaches higher audience shares than the other programs, in spite of its low production budget and lack of advertising…

The “paradox of power” (in the media world), is exactly as follows:

When the media have a public and are independent, the powerful make their lives impossible.

But when the media lose viewers precisely because they gave in to demands made by powerful people,


So for the media,

giving in to demands to such an extent that they compromise their values,

and they cease to fulfil their publics’ needs and expectations,

is tantamount to “suicide”…

The problem is that, not giving in, nowadays, appears to be equally reckless…


Isn’t it time that the powerful –both people and institutions, realize they are killing the “goose that lays the golden eggs”, and that by not setting sensible limitations on their influence, they will lose everything, and end up without any channel for communicating with the “general/broad/mainstream public”?

There is simply no way to recover the majority of the public’s trust, in such a way that the media become profitable again on their own (without subsidies, sponsorships, or patrons, as they do need), if contents agendas don’t readapt themselves to their receivers’ tastes, needs and opinions…


If we add to this a disproportionate and aggressive increase in advertising contents everywhere, and particularly in the media, and the ever less appealing, useful and relevant nature of these advertisements to the public

(unlike in the sixties during the Chemical Revolution, when new products came out daily, each one more attractive and surprising than the last, …at a time when most people had money to buy them and didn’t expect any serious side effects from them),

we can undoubtedly understand why the media crisis has reached its present magnitud.


How, then, can one explain that the Edelman Trust Barometer, suggests repairing institutions’ lack of credibility and trustworthiness –a “cure” for receivers’ skepticism–, …by repeating their messages even more often to make people ultimately accept them due to exhaustion? –harping on them ad nauseam will ultimately make people “blind” to them (as specialists have found in brain studies, in fact), and start to resent them; …and flatly oppose anything recommended to them, as traditionally happens in dictatorships or tyrannies, with respect to the media and official information sources–.

According to the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer [English infographics on media], society’s trust in media barely reaches 40% in the United States and the European Union, and 32 % in Great Britain –countries where it seemed it would never drop (Analysts of those countries were shocked to learn in 1990, that in other countries we systematically question everything the important media sources tell us; cfr. Aída Gambetta, private communication)–. In the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), there is more trust, but not much: 54 %… ‘LatinoBarómetro also finds very low levels in Ibero-America, and Mexico’s  media credibility rated as “only fair”.

That said, the media don’t comprise the least trustworthy institution [Note added in January 2014: …Only one of the least trusted industries, according to Edelman Barometer 2013…].

We can take comfort in the fact that, political parties, governments, unions, courts, etc. are in worse shape… Even NGOs have suffered an important decline in the degree of trust society places in them. That is: The people now only half believe –or even less–  those who either due to their vocation or the social needs they are expected to fulfill, should be telling the truth 100 % of the time (to the extent it is humanly possible for them to know what is really going on).

The trust society placed in them before, is being transferred to everyday citizens, to “somebody like me” –to our “peers” or “fellows”–. And although this phenomenon became visible thanks to internet’s social media networks, it has carried more weight than the media or the so-called institutional “authorities” in terms of book sales and movie attendance, for at least the last 15 years. In 2012, for example, personal recommendations, with no ax to grind –that is by “word of mouth”…, reached a credibility “score” of 65 %. [Edelman article in English on the increasing authority we confer on our circle of aqcuaintances].


Let’s be clear:

To get back platforms having real social influence, …to regain the trust of the average person, it’s important to once again share and reflect THEIR values and tastes, and to fulfil their needs, not those of some contents agenda, imposed on society by power groups.

Not even the media agenda common in the trade because it is ingrained in them during their training years, and enduringly and permanently imposed on them by their interactions with their fellows and the possibility of receiving awards, recognition, scholarships and other opportunities, can replace that of the public.

Why? Because, in broad terms and as absurd as it may seem considering their sociological mission is that of reflecting and fostering their target public’s most widely held values, ideas and beliefs–, media peoples’ agenda differs greatly from that of the majority of society.

Values and trust, go hand in hand… And if the power groups do not set limits, and the media do not take on the task of becoming mouthpieces for the thoughts and feelings of “regular citizens” –and of responding to their interests, tastes and needs–, what happened to traditional media electronic and print, will happen to the digital ones. …Do we really want to see them die off as major influencers and societal backbones, in –perhaps– less than ten years, after the huge investments that have been made to build the eagerly anticipated Digital Society…?

…We don’t, do we?

Therefore the Digital Society can only be restored and endure,

if these two issues are resolved: that of trust, and that of values.



    El estilo de vida actual tiende a la entropía hasta tal grado –esto es: llena tan pobremente nuestras necesidades naturales individuales y sociales–, que desequilibra el tejido social. Por lo mismo, no es sostenible.

    Por ejemplo: En la tercera economía del mundo, Japón, un muy alto porcentaje de jóvenes y mayores, no quiere ya relacionarse románticamente con alguien –mucho menos tener relaciones sx. o casarse–. Y no se puede culpar a las religiones por este “síndrome de celibato”, considerando el floreciente y omnipresente consumo de pornografía.

    En 2013 nacieron cerca de un millón de niños, pero murieron cerca de 1’300,000 adultos, poniendo en riesgo no sólo la sobrevivencia de la nación y su cultura, sino también la entera economía mundial (por su dependencia e interrelación con la economía japonesa).

    Los sueños de la razón engendran monstruos… ¿No va siendo hora de que el poder reconozca que la actual agenda política hegemónica, requiere cambios de fondo…? ///

    Our current target lifestyle tends to entropy to such an extent –id est: it caters so poorly to our natural social and individual needs, that it imbalances the social fabric. It is therefore not a sustainable one.

    An example: In the third largest economy in the world, Japan, a very large percentage of young and mature people, no longer want to relate to one another romantically (either for sx. or for marriage). And religions cannot be blamed for this “celibacy syndrome”, considering how pornography consumption flourishes all around.

    In 2013, close to a million babies were born, but over 1’300,000 adults died, posing a risk to both Japan and its culture’s survival –but also to the entire world economy (through its dependency and interrelations to it).

    The dreams (or sleep) of reason, engenders monsters… It is not high time yet for those in charge, to accept that the current hegemonical political-agenda needs to change substantially?

    [English abstract at the end]

    + “La UEFA considera que 630 partidos [de futbol] fueron amañados”

    “Platini quiere acabar con esta situación antes de que vaya a más, porque suponen ya un 7% de los disputados”:–

    + “La FIFA y la UEFA temen más a los partidos amañados que al dopaje”:

    + “Copa mundial de futbol de la FIFA: ¿habrá trampa en los resultados de los partidos en Brasil?” (“Fifa World Cup 2014: Could matches be fixed in Brazil?), reportado por el Encargado de Seguridad de la FIFA a la BBC:

    + “Barómetro del CIS: El paro y la corrupción, lo que más preocupa a los españoles”

    “La principal novedad de este nuevo barómetro es que la corrupción asciende a la segunda posición de los problemas que más preocupan a los españoles, un lugar que hace un mes ocupaba la economía.”:

    + “Corrupción y recortes: cifras y medidas que explican el descontento [del pueblo] con los políticos españoles”:

    + “Gráfico: Resultado de las elecciones europeas incluyendo la abstención”:

    Los partidos “mayoritarios” en España, apenas alcanzaron el 10-11,73% de los votos (del total de votos posible).

    + “El Tribunal de Cuentas señala que 17 partidos están en quiebra, con CiU e IU a la cabeza”:

    El artículo original publicado por El País el 28 de diciembre de 2013, no aparece en su web. El que sí aparece: “El Tribunal de Cuentas alerta de que le falta personal para fiscalizar a los partidos”, es una versión suavizada del mismo
    –se retiró, por ejemplo, la afirmación de que a todos estos partidos les han sido condonadas sus deudas por los bancos (lo cual es difícil no relacionar con el “rescate bancario” que aquellos de sus miembros entonces en el gobierno, llevaron a cabo, por ejemplo)–.

    + “El Tribunal de Cuentas abre procedimiento a 13 partidos para ver si les sanciona por irregularidades de financiación.

    “El PP, el PSOE, IU, CiU y UPyD estaban citados en esos informes que ahora pueden acabar en sanción”:

    + “Santander presenta una prueba con firmas falsas, para justificar una venta irregular de valores”:

    + “La alucinante componenda del gobierno español con los medios”, por Enrique Dans:

    “El diseño cuidadoso del anteproyecto de ley, que toma como modelo el caso alemán y busca claramente cerrar los huecos que permitieron que Google fuese capaz de evitar el pago en aquel país, dejan claro que estamos hablando de una pieza más en toda esta jugada de toma de control [negociada con los medios, que nombraron en puestos clave a personas afines a la autoridad civil. Esto es:]. El secuestro de la red, como moneda de cambio para lograr un control de los medios, digno de un país populista o directamente autocrático.”:

    + “Twitter empezará a cifrar los mensajes directos para mejorar la seguridad” (para proteger la privacidad y salvar su servicio frente al revuelo causado por las declaraciones de Snowden):

    + “EEUU graba todas las llamadas telefónicas realizadas en un país determinado”

    “El Washington Post publicó que el sistema permite reproducir y escuchar las conversaciones hasta 30 días después”:

    + “Juez de Nueva York declara legal programa de espionaje telefónico de EEUU”

    “Aseguró que no hay evidencia de que el gobierno haya utilizado la información telefónica con un propósito diferente al de frenar ataques terroristas”:–legal–programa-de-esp.aspx

    + “Desde la heterodoxia: Los economistas, esos nuevos bufones”, de Juan Laborda.

    El artículo se cierra con el siguiente párrafo:
    “…Si no lo hacemos, si no abrimos las universidades a nuevas visiones, al final tendrán razón todos aquellos que nos ven a nosotros, los economistas, como los nuevos bufones. Y cobrará pleno sentido aquello que afirmaba el pensador Edgar Morin, ‘La economía, que es la ciencia social matemáticamente más avanzada, es la ciencia social y humanamente más retrasada, pues ha abstraído las condiciones sociales, históricas, políticas, psicológicas y ecológicas inseparables de las actividades económicas. Quizá la incompetencia económica haya pasado a ser el problema social más importante’.”

    Due to the fact they were published in Spanish, instead of translating them, we are posting here a short list of the issues they dealt with:
    Corruption becoming widespread,
    with samples found in…:
    * professional soccer football matches,
    * political parties’ funding –to the point of banks writing off parties’ debts, right when banks themselves needed to be rescued by politicians in office,
    * laws tailored and negociated to control media,
    * communication and information technologies’ corruption (legal and paralegal), and world citizens’ defenselessness (lack of protection) in regards to it, as well as
    * economists following imperfect or non-viable theories,

  3. [English translation follows the Spanish text]

    Sobre la paradoja del poder, el emperador Felipe II escribió:

    “Preciso es gobernar de manera que no-todos se quejen.
    Forzoso es que los malos nos aborrezcan;
    lo que a nosotros nos corresponde es proceder de forma
    que no nos aborrezcan los buenos [también].”

    (cfr.: J. Leyva; Refranes, dichos y sentencias del Quijote; Madrid, Libro-Hobby-Club, 2004; página 134).

    Porque finalmente, no es bueno
    el gobierno, la autoridad, la institución, la empresa, el padre/madre de familia, la pandilla, o la persona…,
    que trata mal a los buenos, haciendo que el vicio resulte más productivo y conveniente que la virtud.
    Y tampoco es inteligente, porque a mediano y largo plazo, está generando su propia destrucción.

    English translation:

    Regarding the paradox of power, Emperor Phillip II wrote:

    “It is necessary to govern in such a way that not everybody complains.
    Of necessity evil doers will loathe us;
    what remains for us is to act in such a way that the good
    do not loathe us [as well].”
    (cfr.: J. Leyva; “Refranes, dichos y sentencias del Quijote” (Proverbs, sayings and maxims from Quixote); Madrid, Libro-Hobby-Club, 2004; p. 134).

    Because ultimately,
    governments, authorities, institutions, businesses, parents, groups of friends, or individuals…,
    aren’t good,
    when they mistreat the good people, making vice more productive and expedient than virtue.
    Nor is it intelligent, because in the medium and long run, it spawns their own destruction.

  4. [English translation follows the Spanish text]

    Otro ejemplo más de las decisiones empresarialmente equivocadas, que están tomando los medios de comunicación:

    La reestructuración actual de El País, el cual despidió por correo electrónico a 129 profesionales que, en conjunto, ganaban mucho menos que su mayor directivo.
    Esto lógicamente ha tenido un efecto negativo en su personal –en la “moral de sus tropas”–, además de afectar negativamente la calidad de sus contenidos (el 24 de enero, 2013, por ejemplo, publicaron una fotografía falsa en portada…).
    A su vez, esto afectará aún más su credibilidad, reduciendo el número de sus suscriptores y sus ventas en general.
    Por su parte, la pérdida de lectores inevitablemente alejará aún más, también a los anunciantes…
    Todo sumado, esperemos una próxima y aún mayor caída en los ingresos de El País, con gran dolor de nuestro corazón, y una pérdida enorme para la sociedad española.

    Más datos en:

    English translation:

    Another example of poor business decisions, being made in media:
    The current reorganization at ‘El País’ (the Spanish liberal/socialist top national newspaper) let go 129 employees who, all together, earned far less than their top executive.
    Logically, this has had a negative impact on their staff –on the “morale of the troops”–, in addition to having a negative effect on the quality of their contents (January 24, 2013, for example, they printed a fake photograph on the front page…).
    In turn, this will have further impact on their credibility, leading to fewer subscriptions and lower overall sales.
    In turn, again, fewer readers will inevitably interest to fewer advertisers…
    All in all, we can expect ‘El Pais’ to experience an even greater loss of income soon, much as that pains us, as well as being an enormous loss for Spanish society.
    More information at:

  5. REF.:


    Internet ofrece oportunidades insospechadas, como bien señalaron los ponentes de la última Tertulia Fullbright (diciembre 2012).
    El surgimiento del crowfunding, el alcance incluso excesivo de los motores de búsqueda de información, la democratización de ésta, etc., son algunas de las impresionantes aportaciones de Internet.
    Ahora bien, ¿quién los audita y protege de los poderosos…?
    Son tan susceptibles de chantaje, intimidación, compra, manipulación, sesgo, egoísmo, crímenes, etc., como las actuales instituciones y canales de información.
    …Y la sociedad ya no los recibe con la misma inocencia e ingenuidad que a sus antecesores tecnológicos.
    De hecho, los resultados de la Encuesta Edelman de Confianza en las Instituciones 2012, arrojan mínimos históricos en la práctica totalidad de países e instituciones estudiados, al punto de obstruir en alto grado su operabilidad y futuro. O –como dijo Olga Gil–, no gestionamos ya la confianza, sino la desconfianza.
    No hay manera de construir una Sociedad Digital sólida y perdurable, si no se restaura realmente la confianza.
    Y no hay manera de restaurar la confianza de la mayor parte de la sociedad en los medios e instituciones (on & off line), si no se asume hasta sus últimas consecuencias un código de valores…
    Esto es claro. El problema está en que los valores que podrían vertebrar perdurable y productivamente la nueva sociedad, no son los de la agenda política vigente, sino los mayoritarios de cada sociedad en la que queramos operar… –los que ella siente como propios–.
    Éste es el verdadero reto.

    Esta reflexión, compartida el día de la Tertulia Fullbright, dio lugar al presente post.

    Internet offers brand-new opportunities to us, as the Fullbright Association talks/tertulias’ last speakers put out (December 2012).
    The birth of crowfunding, the at times even excessive reach of search engines, the democratization of information, etc., are some of Internet’s most impressive contributions to humankind.
    However, who does the auditing and provides protection from those in power…?
    They are vulnerable to blackmail, intimidation, bribery, manipulation, bias, egoism, crime, etc., as our present institutions and channels of information are.
    …Plus: People are no longer as naïve –as gullible and unsuspicious, as they were when Internet’s technological predecessors developed.
    As a matter of fact, the conclusions from the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer confirm that society’s trust in its institutions has reached historic lows –so low that their maneuvrability and survival are clearly at stake. Or –as Olga Gil put it: We no longer manage trust, but distrust.
    There is no way to build a sound and long-lasting Digital Society, if trust is not firmly reestablished.
    And there is no way to restore trust, if the majority of media and institutions (both on & off line), does not fully embrace a code of ethics, together with everything it entails…
    This is crystal clear. The problem lays elsewhere: The values that might create a backbone structure, offer strength and depth, to the new society, are not those currently in the agenda.
    The only ones that can offer this permanence and social cohesion, are those which a majority considers their own in a given society.
    This is the ultimate challenge.

    This reflexion, shared with the Fullbright gathering last week, sparked the publication of this post.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

¿...Humano? / ...Human? *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.