ࡱ> a Mjbjb,, $NNG....... $-,'Ry...~..BtJ...... [Bb0-  .$ $d$Manufacturing Union Consent by Bob Fitch John Stuart Mills On Liberty, begins with a declaration of victory. The centuries long battle for press freedom was over, he proclaimed. The Establishment had finally surrendered its right to prescribe opinions to the people or censor the information the people should be allowed to read. Today, over 150 years later, Mills sense of triumph sounds a bit hollow. According to the most recent survey by Reporters Without Borders, press freedoms have been shrinking world wide not only in Putins Russia, where even well known journalists are murdered and imprisoned. But in Bushs America which has its own lesser-known press martyrs. They are people like Sami al Haj, an Al Jazeera cameraman now occupying a 5X7 cell in Guantanamo allegedly for aiding Chechnaya rebels[1]; and photographer Bilal Hussein who helped the AP win a Pulitzer but now sits in a U.S. jail in Iraq allegedly for getting too close to insurgents while taking their pictures. [2] These imprisonments -- without trial or formal charges -- along with recent court decisions depriving journalists of the right to confidential sources -- explain why when it comes to press freedom-- the U.S. ranks 53d in a tie with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga.[3] Compared with the obstacles faced by reporters in U.S. occupied Iraq, the situation of journalists working inside the U.S. labor movement seems utterly incomparable. No staffer on the New York Teacher risks Russian-style radiation poisoning for writing an article critical of Randy Weingarten. On the other hand, what are the odds against an article critical of Randy ever getting through the AFTs editorial filters? You never know, says the New York Lottery. But with the lottery, someone generally wins. In the case of the union newspaper, a discouraging word has never been heard. Ever. So while U.S. labor journalists enjoy immeasurably more security than those trying to cover the American occupation, the situation of American labor press freedom may --in some respects --be even more dire. Thats because so few are fighting openly against its restrictions. Of course practically, theres not much the union labor reporters and editors can do. Theyre the cooks and waiters serving up whats ordered. The menu is determined elsewhere -- in the higher labor circles. Nor is there much difference on the question of press freedom between the labor left and the so-called Old Guard. When reformers win office they dont reform the union paper. They simply replace the old leaderships one-way communication regime with their own. Both the labor left and the Old Guard agree that a free labor press one that permits debate; that is skeptical of authority; and strives to make the leadership accountable to the membership --has no place in the American labor movement. I would like to challenge this assumption. In my experience people in the higher labor media circles tend to be progressive. They value freedom and democracy highly but selectively. Martin Luther King, in his I Have a Dream speech, urged that freedom ring out everywhere. Thats not what labor progressives believe. They think some precincts should remain a quiet zone. They insist theres no democracy without industrial democracy; but they dont believe that industrial democracy requires union democracy. Progressives believe in a free press, but in not a free labor press. The popularity of Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermans Manufacturing Consent illustrates the double standard in progressive media thinking.[4] In nearly twenty years since the first edition, its become a leftist media studies bible. Progressive labor people accept its Jeffersonian premises; its adversarial concept of the medias proper role; its critique of corporate media methods and manipulation; but few would ever think of applying the authors propaganda model to their own work in union media. Only corporate media not union media -- should be judged by Chomskys Jefferson principles which are evidently quite demanding. Jefferson, youll recall, said if he had to choose between a free press and no government and a government without a free press, hed choose the former. Far from dissenting voices weakening democracy, they constitute its essence. Jeffersons preference shouldnt shock strong democrats. Only a truly independent press can hold authority to account. Only the media not individual bloggers -- has the resources to expose official corruption and wrongdoing. Without the Washington Posts reporting on outpatient conditions at Walter Reed hospital, the American public wouldnt be able to appreciate the cynicism behind the Bush administrations insistence that we support the troops. Perhaps even more important, only a genuinely independent press can provide a forum for dissenting opinion and political alternatives. North Korea which ranks last in press freedom, illustrates the productive relationship between press monopoly and oligarchy. According to Reporters Without Borders, All the media serve as mouthpieces of the regime. Praise of the leader Kim Jong-il fills page after page in the newspapers and entire radio and TV programmes. The TV news programmes consist largely of footage of the dictator visiting new companies or attending opening ceremonies, accompanied by lyrical comments on the greatness of Kim Il-sungs son and successor. The official newspaper Labour Daily is posted in the street but few people stop to read or buy it.[5] (Thats the North Korean Labor Daily. Not any U.S. labor paper, in case you were confused. ) Chomsky and Hermans point is that in Communist countries, the propagandistic character of the media is obvious; here its disguised by the faade of exposes and competition. They argue that three primary filters prevent the U.S. media from becoming an independent press in the sense of independent from the ruling corporate elites. First and most obviously, because of its ownership structure; the same corporate and financial institutions which control the press control the rest of Americas corporate assets; Second, because the corporate medias need for corporate advertising revenue. And third, because of the medias dependence on corporate and official governmental sources. Its these filters, they say, that explain why our media presents government propaganda as genuine information; why it suppresses dissent; and tends to marginalize critics. The Manufacturing Consent model works. But not perfectly. It helps explain how the media could have played such a subservient and uncritical role after 9-11. What it cant explain is why the media sometimes corrects its mistakes. That it contains some self-criticism; some effort to present both sides of an argument; even some margin for dissent; features of the capitalist press that arent often found in the progressive labor press. The capitalist press can boast of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. True, that was long ago. But just this week we have the Bill Moyers PBS expose of media servility. Dan Rathers apology. And Tuesdays New York Times story that ventilated the recent public attack on the competence and legitimacy of Arthur Sulzberger Jr. the papers boss. Can anyone recall such self-critical stories ever appearing in the labor press? Another problem with Chomsky: he implies that without its corporate filters, the media would find and spread the truth. But look at the labor media. It comes a lot closer to the North Korean model than the Jeffersonian model. Consider its performance in terms of what a free press is supposed to do. Does anyone think it does a good job of acting a check on authority; rooting out corruption; or providing seedbed for new ideas? Does it act as a tribune for the members concerns? Its their press. Does it provide them with unfiltered access to its columns? These failures are hard to explain in Chomskyian terms. Union media have none of the filters that constrain the mainstream media. Unions arent corporations. They dont depend on advertising. Nor do they rely on establishmentarian sources. The labor world has magnificent gadflies like Marty Fishgold and Harry Kelber. It has many talented and hard-working reporters and editors who care about the membership and seek to write stories from their point of view. But where are the Bill Moyers of the mainstream labor press? And even if it doesnt live up to them, the corporate media has some principles standards which can be used to shame them. Like the notion that the press ought to be skeptical of official claims and invite dissenting views. Not so the labor press. Tough guys dont dance. And labor papers dont have op-ed pages. There are none, I would argue, because the labor media has its own, unique filters. The first is created by those who controls the labor press. Union papers arent owned by corporations; theyre controlled by labor leaders. They act as the sole, absolute and final censors of what can and cannot be printed. The leaders prints all the news that fit their interest and feed their egos. The second filter is formed by union vendors who play a role comparable to advertisers. Union members need to know how those who provide them with services essential to their health, welfare and retirement future are actually performing. But the AFT is no more likely to run an expose on HIP, the sleazy New York based HMO, than the Daily News is going to take a shot at Macys. Third is the autocratic ideology that permeates the top union leadership and filters down to the lesser leadership and the staff. Its okay for the news to be managed; because the workers cant be trusted to manage their affairs anyway. Lets look very briefly at how these three filters operate. 1. The Control Filter. AJ Liebling famously observed that the free press is free for everyone who owned one. In other words, with ownership comes control. With union media its more complicated. Union media are not bought and paid for by union leaders. Its the members who pay for it. But control eludes them. Under union leader control, the labor press serves uniquely as a kind of vanity press. You dont find A.O. Sulzbergers picture pasted on every other page of the New York Times. Every issue of The Post doesnt have to have a quote from Rupert Murdoch. Few even know the name of the family that owns the Wall Street Journal. (The Bancrofts name almost never appears in the Journal.) The aim of the labor press is not to make money for stockholders or advertisers; its to provide Hungry Man- sized portions of praise for the leadership; it highlights the otherwise obscure doings of the lesser leadership; and gives recognition to loyal myrmidons Whats not an aim is serving as a vital information source for the membership or crystallizing their unfiltered concerns. Flowing from leadership control are a couple of the labor press distinguishing characteristics. First is labors invincible optimism. Only the triumphs. Only the good news. 24/7. Of course the steady good news diet is nothing new. A century ago, Rosa Luxembourg in her pamphlet on the mass strike an old labor tradition that we sorely miss -- attacked the trade union bureaucracy on just these grounds. According to Rosa, the typical labor leader emphasizes only the positive side of the daily struggle. Fulsome flattery and boundless optimism are considered to be the duty of every friend of the trade-union movement. But in contemporary American labor, theres arguably less to be optimistic about; and the no criticism rule doesnt extend just to the leadership that controls the paper. Its not permitted to criticize other union leaders; or even the boss; which means union media often cant talk about substandard conditions of the members. In some unions wages are so low, the members are homeless not on the streets necessarily, but living in shelters. Yet its rare that these conditions can be mentioned because it would reflect badly on the union leaders bargaining skills. The capitalist press loves conflict and crises because they sell. The labor press charges its readers to survive so it can present a world in which all the conflicts have either disappeared or are under control of the peerless leader who we see in tireless action solving our most pressing problems. The upshot is that the labor press is intrinsically boring. When friends urge us to look at the pictures of their summer vacation, or at the arrival of their new baby we look at them politely, but we wouldnt spend a lot of time looking on our own. Its the same with the labor press which often has that family album feel. Its a pity sometimes that the labor press goes unread. Because there are good stories written by talented journalists. But union members like North Koreans workers -- dont spend a lot of time reading their labor press. Matt Witt, director of the American Labor Education Center and previously communications director at the Mineworkers, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), conducted focus groups while at SEIU. Says Witt: The huge majority of people receiving a union publication are not looking at it, in the sense of not looking at itperiod.[6] (II) Power of the vendors. The performance of HIP is a matter of life and death for over a million people, most of whom are unionized New York City workers. The local Labor press ought to be all over this beat. But its not. Consequently, members dont realize how poorly HIP has served them. A few years ago, the NY State Department of Insurance found that HIP had only about a dozen people to screen calls from the million customers. It was a simple way to ration care and cut costs. Just dont pick up. Members arent aware either of the persistent conflicts of interest between their leaders and HIP. Isnt it a matter of concern that top municipal labor leaders serve on the boards of HIP? How can they act in the best interests of both institutions. How could Stanley Hill, former ED of DC 37, serve the members interests when he was receiving $50,000 a year from a secret HIP foundation? The former head of the UFTs husband served as an EVP of HIP. The present head of the UFT and the present chair of the MLC was chair of HIP before she ever became a teacher. Now HIP is taking itself private. The transaction will produce billions. Who will benefit? Who should benefit? Maybe Ive missed it, but as yet I havent seen any debate or discussion or coverage or even mention of these issues in the official labor press. I attribute this to the vendor filter. (iii) The final filter is ideological. Ideologies are the beliefs that guide us in political action. The sign posts that tell us when were on or off what the Koran calls the Straight Path. The path of social justice. As opposed to the fastest, cheapest, easiest way to get from A to B. Bad ideologies are undemanding: they simply present our own interest as the general interest. Like corporate ideology: the ideology of the fish world. Big fish eat little fish and so it goes. Or union ideology: the ideology of the sheep world. Sheep are not capable of finding the grass on their own. They need us sheep herders. While the sheep are mostly gone, the sheep herder ideology has remained pretty constant. Half century ago, Dave Beck leader of America largest union, observed, Im paid $25,000 a year to run this outfitWhy should truck drivers and bottle washers be allowed to make decisions affecting policy. Now corporation would allow it.[7]. Has contempt for the people they represent disappeared from labors higher circles? In a response to a reference to union democracy Andy Stern head of Americas largest union posted the following on SEIUs blog: Workers want their lives to be changed. They want strength and a voice, not some purist, intellectual, mythical democracy. Workers can win when they are united, and leaders who stand in the way of change screaming democracy are faialing to understand how workers exercise the limited power they have in a country where only 8.2 percent of the private sector are in unions. Conclusion: Since Andys angry blog, were down to 7.4% in the private sector and SEIU now claims 300,000 less members. What can we conclude? Workers do want a voice. But not only one voice. Andys voice. All the time. Voicing the same unrelenting, uncritical self-praise. If theres going to be any stop to organized labors death spiral, its going to require more than the one-way communication were have now; it will also require facing up to unpleasant realities. The question is: who is better able to face the truth about themselves: the members or the leaders? This is from an account of a meeting in John Stuart Mills effort to represent a working class constituency in parliament. He was handed a note with a quotation taken from one of his works that the lower classes though mostly habitual liars are ashamed of lying. He was asked whether he had written these words. When he answered, I did, the meeting consisting of workers applauded loudly. (Cambridge Companion to Mill, 372) In my experience, telling labor leaders theyre habitual liars meets with far less enthusiasm. Workers are much readier to face the truth; but they need an unfiltered media to deliver it. [1] http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2006/DA_fall_06/prisoner/prisoner.html (website of the Committee to Protect Journalists) [2] Tom Curley, In Iraq a Journalist in Limbo,Washington Post, September 23,2006, A19. [3] http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639. visited April 3, 2007. [4] Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988). [5] http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10211 [6] David Moberg, Union stations, In These Times, April 20, 2005. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2078/union_stations/ [7] http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2972 (quoted in History Link Essay Beck, David,The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History.) +-PR""MMܺ hc[khc[khc[khc[kB*OJQJph$hc[khc[k5B*CJOJQJph!hHfhc[kB*CJOJQJph$hc[khc[k5B*CJOJQJph+-PR Q S :<\^y{npeg"">#gdc[kM>#@#$$' 'C(E())D+F+p,q,s,--//1/0000)3*3,3-33f5h5h577$:&:!<#<??AAEEGG:JJ?J@JAJBJCJDJEJFJGJHJIJJJJJKJLJMJNJJ!KnKKLLMgdc[k ":pc[k/ =!"#$%<@< NormalCJaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No ListG z z z z z z z  *5@G@ +-PRQS: < \ ^ y { npeg>@! !C"E"##D%F%p&q&s&''/)1)****)-*-,----f/h/11$4&4!6#699;;??AA:DD?D@DADBDCDDDEDFDGDHDIDJDKDLDMDNDD!EnEEFF G0p@ƀ0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@000000000p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@00p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@+-PRQS: < \ ^ y eg>@! !C"E"##D%F%p&q&s&''/)nEEFF GY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0PY7a0P DpR48a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P8a0P:a0P8a0P8a0P0Щ0I8oMK>#h5JJMLNOPMM!&/LQ t|&gq(.Z` * ( 3 9 &&77>>>>>???DEEE FFFF G 07  ["(PQKWd!i!!!!"""""###$%%++>+P+Q+d+--.$.1144457799D:_:;;;;<"<<<>>7@N@O@\@]@j@CCKDLDD EEEHEWE^EEEFF G:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::@KDKD54KDKDG0 @UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 ArialC+>Lucida Grande qhX:`:I :}!>4Hh3Manufacturing Union Consent CUNY J-School CUNY J-School Oh+'0HZ   < H T`hpx'Manufacturing Union ConsentCUNY J-SchoolNormalCUNY J-School1Microsoft Word 11.2@^в@@9I :GXPICTXd ,, MSWD  :.(d,Manufact-F(d@u-)'ri-F)-n-)'g-)& -)Uni-F)do-)&n-)& -F)C-)*ons-F)le-)#nt-`)> -(, -`) -(,by B-F)o-)&b-)& -)Fitch- =)  6-(., -) -(n,John S- K)t-)uart-)r -)Mills- K) -)On-)O -)Liberty,- K) -)begin-)s-) with- K) -)a-)  -)de-)Dc-)lara-)kt-)ion- K)W -)of-)8 -)victo- K)r-)y.-), - K)T-)&he-)C -(,centuries long batt-(>l-)e- K)  -)for-)Q -)pre-)]s-)s- K) -)free-)od-)#om- K)V -)was-)n -)over,- K) -)he-)C -) proclaimed.- K(> -)The (,"Establishment had finally surrende-(r-)ed- K)D -)its-h)G -)right-) -)to-h)8 -)pr-)=e-)sc-)<r-)ibe- K)V -)opinions-) -(-,#to the people or censor the informa- K(- t-)ion-)W -)the- K)Y -) people sh- K(-o-)#uld-)Y -)be- K)D -)a-) l-)lowed (m, to read. -`) -(, -) 2-(,Today, o-)v-)er- Q)0 -)1-) 5-)0- Q)  -)years-) -)later,- Q)} -)Mills-)~ -)se- Q)5n-) se-)5 -)of- Q)1 -)triumph-) -)sou- Q)Wn-) ds-)8 -)a- Q) -)bit-)@ -)hollow.- Q) -(#,A-)"ccording- Q) -)to-)2 -)the- Q)N -)most-)z -)re-)0c-)ent- Q)N -)survey-) -)by- Q)9 -) Reporters-) -)Without- Q) -)Borders,-) -)pr- Q)3e-)ss (^,freedoms have been shrin- Q(^k-)ing-)L -)wor- Q)Zl-)d-) -)wid- Q)Te-) )) not only in Putins Russia, whe(^Are-)0 -(,'even well known journalists are murdere- Q(d-)  and-)j -)impr- Q)pi-)soned.-) -) But- Q)_ -)in-)- -)Bushs- Q) -(,A-)"merica- Q) -)which-) -)has- Q)T -)its-): -)own- Q)e -)lesser)-) known pre- Q(js-)s-) -)martyrs.- Q) -)They-)u -)are- Q)L -)people-) -)like-`)U -(, Sami al Haj-(:,-) an- Q)K -)A-)"l- Q) -)J-)a-)zeera- Q) -)c-)amer-){a-)man- Q)j -)n-)o-)w- Q)' -)o-)c-)cupying- Q) -)a-) -)5X7- Q)_ -)c-)ell- Q)8 -)in-)- -) Guantanam-(o -(I,) allegedly for a- Q(Ii-)ding-)k -)Chechna) ya rebels[1- Q(I]-);-) -)and- Q)Z -) photographer-(I -)Bilal- Q)c -)Hussein-) -)who- Q)e -(, helped the -(=A-)"P- Q) -)win-)T -)a- Q) -)Pulitzer-) -)but- Q)Q -)no-)>w-)& sits- Q)c i-)n-) -)a- Q) -)U.-)3S-).- Q) -) jail-)W -)in- Q)- -)Iraq-)] -)) allege- Q)d-) ly-)( -)for-`)E -(, getting too-(: -)close- Q)| -)to-)2 -) insurgents- Q) -)while-)~ -)taking- Q) -)their-)p -) pictures.- Q) -)[2]-)@ -) These- Q) -(,impr- Q)pi-)sonments-) -)--): without trial or formal-(  -)charges- Q) -)--): a),long with rece-(n-)t- Q) -)court-\) -(5,decisio- Q)n-) s-) -)dep- Q)Zr-)ivi- Q)6n-) g-) -)journal- Q)i-)sts-)E -)of- Q)1 -)the-)N -)rig- Q)Ah-) t-) -)to confidential- Q(5 -)sources-) -)--): explain- Q) -(p, why when it-(pN -)comes- Q) -)t-)o- Q) -)press-) -)fre- Q)Be-)dom)m--): t-)#h-)e- Q) -)U.S.-)^ -)ranks- Q) -)5-)3d- Q)? -)) in a tie-) -)with (,Botswa-)n-)a,- Q), -)Cr-)7o-)atia and- Q) -) Tonga.[3]-f) -(, -) -( ,Compared with th-( e-) obstacles- Q) -)faced-) -)by- Q)9 -) reporters-) -)in U.S. occupied Iraq, the-( ( -([,situation of journalists wor- Q([k-)ing-)L -)i- Q)n-) side-)b -)th- Q)2e-) U.S.-)n -)labor- Q)| -)m-)/o-)vemen-)t-) seems- Q) -)utterly-) -(,!incomparable. No staffer on the N-(fe-)w- Q)' -)York-)o -)Te-)<a-)cher- Q)i -)ris- Q);k-)s-) -)Rus- Q)Xs-)ian)I-)style radiation- Q( -(,poisoni- Q)n-) g-) -)for- Q)E -)writing-) -)an- Q); -)article-) -)critical- Q) -)of Randy-) -) Weingarten.- Q( -) On-\)V -)the-`)N -)o-)ther-)b -( , hand, wha-)t-) are- Q)\ -)th-)2e-) odds- Q) -)against-) -)an- Q); -)article-) -)critical- Q) -)of-)1 -)Randy- Q) -)ever-)f -)getting- Q) -)through-\) -(G,the -)^A-)"FTs- Q)d -) editorial-) -)f- Q)i-)lters?-) -) You- Q) -)never-) -)know,- Q) -)says-)h -)the- Q)N -)N-)%e-)w- Q)' -)York-)o -)L-)o-)ttery.- Q) -)B-)u-)t (, with the lo-(.t-)tery,- Q)m -)someone-) -)ge-);n-)erally- Q) -)wins.-)} -)In- Q)- -)the-)N -)case- Q)k -)of-)1 -)t-)h-)e- Q) -)union-) -) newspaper,- Q( -)a-\) -(, discouragi- Q)n-) g-) -)word- Q)y -)has-)T -)never- Q) -)been-)v -)heard.- Q) -)Ever.-)u -(, -) -( 3,LSo while U.S. labor journalists enjoy immeasurably more security than those *:trying to cover the -( mA-)" merican o-)c-) cupation, the- Q( mg -) situation-) -)of- Q)1 -)A-)"merican- Q) -)labor-)| -)press-`) -( , freedom may ( |--):in some respects ( `--):be e-)gv-)en- Q); -)more-)~ -)dire.- Q)m -) Tha-)kt-)s- Q)) -)bec)U ause so few-(  -( ,are fighting open- Q( l-)y-) -)against- Q) -)its-): -)res- Q)It-)riction- Q)s-).-) -) Of- Q)I -)course-) -) practically,- Q( S -)theres-) -)not ( ,;much the union labor reporters and editors can do. Theyre-(  -)the- Q)N -)c-)ooks- Q)t -)and-)Z -( Y,waiters serving - Q( Yu-) p-) -)whats- Q) -)ordered.-) -)The- Q)[ -)m-).enu- Q)Z -)is-)' -) determined- Q( Y -)e- Q)l-)sewhere-) -)--): in the ( , higher lab)or c- Q)]i-)rcles.-) -@ ) -( , -) -( ,3Nor is there much difference on the question of pre- Q( s-)s-) -)freedom- Q) -)between-) -)the ( E,labor left and the so( E-)called Old Guard. - Q( EW-),hen-)Z -) reformers- Q) -)win-)T -)of- Q)1f-)ice-)D -)they- Q)h -)dont-\) -( ,%reform the union paper. They simply r- Q( e-)p- Q)l-)ace-)R -)t-)h-)e- Q) -)old-)L -)leadersh- Q)i-)ps-)H -)one)Z-)way-)]  ! ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! ! ՜.+,0 `hpx  '}H Manufacturing Union Consent Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fi1TableR WordDocument$SummaryInformation(axZDocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjXObjectPoolii FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8