WaPo: We really didn’t want that story about Obamacare adding to the deficit to go viral

posted at 1:56 pm on April 17, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton recently defended the WaPo’s decision to run a major story on page A3, rather than the front page. The story — which revealed that Obamacare will actually add to the deficit rather than subtract from it, as the administration has claimed since before the passage of the massive health care takeover — quickly became a sensation nevertheless, as blog after blog picked up on the information and disseminated it rapidly. Pexton sounded at best ambivalent and at worst peeved that the story — despite WaPo’s best attempt to downplay it — attracted the volume of attention it did. Writes Pexton:

Putting the story on A3 was the right judgment for a print publication. Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasn’t worth that.

But that’s so old-media. On The Post’s Web site, the story took off, even though it was prominent on the home page for only a short time. It immediately entered the partisan spin cycle of exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole. …

But I’m not sure the truth wins. The truth is that every complex law change, every annual federal budget, is a risk. They’re all based on assumptions and forecasts that may or may not come true. And when they don’t, Congress and the president have to adjust.

As the Medicare actuary wrote in his 2011 testimony: “The Affordable Care Act improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially. However, the effects of some of the new law’s provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal, especially in the longer-range future.”

Investor Business Daily’s Sean Higgins thinks the story should have run on the frontpage and I’m inclined to agree with him. A3 was OK, too, though. Kiosk passersby might not have seen it, but anyone who cracked the cover of the paper surely did. But Pexton’s all-but-admission that he thinks the subsequent back-and-forth discussion about the story was somehow destructive to the truth is a little insulting.

The role of Old Media has changed. Print reporters still provide important information, the original reporting without which no commentary enterprise could survive. But they’re not the moderators of all discussion, nor are they able or should they be able to to control the interpretations to which the information they provide is subject. Unless bloggers transmitted the information from the story incorrectly — and my guess is most blogs transmitted it with a link to the actual story, which means readers still received the pertinent factual information straight from The Washington Post – WaPo really has nothing about which to complain. Facts are not subject to debate — but the meaning of those facts is open to interpretation. The sooner Old Media accords New Media respect for its vital role in facilitating robust discussion, the sooner New Media will again appreciate the indispensable contributions of Old Media in both the past and the present.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hmmmm. So WaPo doesn’t want credit for a report it released?

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Newspaper ombudsmen, more and more, are just becoming apologists rather than actual watchdogs.

Kind of like their masters, now speaking power to truth.

Red Cloud on April 17, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Pravda wannabe.

Welcome to the Utopia of Marxists.

Disinformation. Obfuscation. Lies.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Huh? So they don’t want a story they wrote to get a bunch of attention from the rest of the insanestream media, the blogosphere, and talk radio(and eventually the entire nation)? Isn’t that the goal of their profession? Report the news and try to reach as many people as possible? I hear there’s good money in a business model like that.

Doughboy on April 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

They were thinking, perhaps, no one reads page A-3

MTF on April 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

They just could not justify NOT printing at all.

Jabberwock on April 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM

It immediately entered the partisan spin cycle of exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole.

But enough about the Washington Post itself.

rbj on April 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM

It’s irrelevant what page it appeared on. Nobody read it in the paper itself, we read it online. There are no front pages and A3′s in a URL. The real story here is the flack the WaPo is getting for printing it at all, from those on the left. Censorship loving liberals strike again.

TheLastBrainLeft on April 17, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Yeah, Tina, but the Old School media doesn’t want discussion, they want us to just eat what they feed us.

Tenwheeler on April 17, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I’m sick and tired of people comparing the washington times to Pravda. At least once a year or so Pravda would actually have a story with some journalistic integrity and research. That’s a whole lot more than this beltway rag ever does.

acyl72 on April 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Out: Journalism.
In: Pravda.

hillsoftx on April 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

One would think that any human with half of brain cells working already knew the bhocare would NEVER do squat it was suppose to do and would add to the deficit! That MIGHT have been why SO many American’s DID not want this piece of krap?
L

letget on April 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The WaPo was and is heavily invested in supporting Obamacare. That the story made it into print is an accomplishment in itself. The filthy rag is nothing but five sections of OP-ED pieces. Seriously, the reporters think nothing of throwing in their own views in stories that should be fairly straightforward.

Happy Nomad on April 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasn’t worth that.

WTF? Does Pexton seriously imply that a reporter fought her editors to NOT put her work on the front page?

Doesn’t pass the smell test, sorry.

JeffWeimer on April 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I’m sick and tired of people comparing the washington times to Pravda.

acyl72 on April 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Washington Times? Don’t you mean the Post?

Happy Nomad on April 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Ombudsman…LOL.

d1carter on April 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM

If this had been a story of higher than anticipated costs of the Bush tax cuts, do you think it would have been on Page 3? I think you’re being far too magnanimous here.

paul1149 on April 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’m sick and tired of people comparing the washington times to Pravda. At least once a year or so Pravda would actually have a story with some journalistic integrity and research. That’s a whole lot more than this beltway rag ever does.

acyl72 on April 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Yup, when it would report that the Communist Party garnered almost 98% of the vote. And the Gulag received another 2% increase in “inmates.”

OhEssYouCowboys on April 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

o/t

Noted “Non-Racist” Elitist Is So Hypocritical That She Is Incapable Of Seeing Her Own Hypocrisy

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/04/noted-non-racist-elitist-is-so.html

SHOCKINGLY RACIST! In that bastion of a post-racialism, Sweden, no less!

Resist We Much on April 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Sorry to be so naive but why print something in a newspaper you do not want people to read? The MSM ignores news all the time, why not pretend with this as well?

Elizabetty on April 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM

He threw this in “derisively called Obamacare.”It’s been this from day 1.He should hear what they call Obama around here.

docflash on April 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Come on folks, does anyone really care about Obamacare adding to the deficit. It’s not like one of its selling points was that it needed to be passed to reduce the deficit, and that it would not add a penny to the deficit.

WaPo was too kind in even mentioning this story.

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

just ’cause we printed it doesn’t mean we really want people to read it…../

ted c on April 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

But I’m not sure the truth wins. The truth is that every complex law change, every annual federal budget, is a risk. They’re all based on assumptions and forecasts that may or may not come true. And when they don’t, Congress and the president have to adjust.

This is BS!!!! Every conservative columnist, blogger, and radio host, plus congressman Paul Ryan pointed out that they were double-counting cuts and not counting costs correctly. Plus, they predicted everything that happened. So are we to believe that liberals are just complete idiots who have no place in a modern society because they are so dumb? OOOOORRRRRRR, are we to believe that they are lying assholes that purposely are trying to destroy the greatest nation in history?

Sorry, but if Obama is so smart as we are always told, then he knew what was going on. Predictions mean something. When the media uses the word “unexpectedly” in a column, they are admitting that they are clueless and not worth our time or money. When a politician has “unexpected consequences” to a law, then he needs to be voted out. There can be some rare occurrences when nobody could have predicted something, but as I said it is rare!

jeffn21 on April 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Come on folks, does anyone really care about Obamacare adding to the deficit. It’s not like one of its selling points was that it needed to be passed to reduce the deficit, and that it would not add a penny to the deficit.

WaPo was too kind in even mentioning this story.

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Au contraire. That was a huge selling point. They had to fudge the numbers so much to get this angle, it was an amazing lie. It was “Hey, we can get everybody health care AND it won’t add to the deficit.”

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Hmmmm. So WaPo doesn’t want credit for a report it released?

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

The New York Gulag-Loving Slimes didn’t want credit for exposing Obama’s Rev. Wright connection in 2007-8, either. So much for “journalism.”

ebrown2 on April 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

just ’cause we printed it doesn’t mean we really want people to read it…../

ted c on April 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It’s really amazing that they even published this story at all. NYT would have no qualms about ignoring it.

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Putting the story on A3 was the right judgment for a print publication that goes out of it’s way to support the current administration.

FIFY

GarandFan on April 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But that’s so old-media. On The Post’s Web site, the story took off, even though it was prominent on the home page for only a short time. It immediately entered the partisan spin cycle of exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole.

Translation..

You ignorant boobs can’t get with the program,.. facts don’t matter, it’s a massive liberal entitlement program which will cost trillions………. BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER….

because we liberals want it,.. so screw the truth.

This is nothing short of an admission they dill do anything they can to save Obamacare, because to them, it’s the new Medicaid.. and once in place, impossible to root out. Because buddy if you try..

the Post will run all kinds of republicans want you to die stories.

They are so in the tank, they don’t even try to hide it anymore.

mark81150 on April 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I am not a lawyer, thank heaven, but I have heard / read that obamacare is illegal because it was passed by “reconciliation” and that process requires a bill to be financially budget neutral- can not add any $ to deficit. This would seem to me to be a MAJOR! problem with the bill. Anyone else have any information, ideas??

Lew in Colorado on April 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

He threw this in “derisively called Obamacare.”It’s been this from day 1.He should hear what they call Obama around here.

docflash on April 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Yep. They coin “Reaganomics” and other terms to pin policies to Repubs, but whine if their own tactic is used against them. Weak.

Christien on April 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

This guy sounds like he’s working for the Obama campaign directly.

blink on April 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

He is. Just without pay. Kind of an “in-kind’ donation.

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The lesson you’d think the Post (and others) would take from this is that in the age of digital media, you can’t bury stories anymore on the inside of the paper, because all hyperlinks are equal once they are put into circulation.

The lesson the Post apparently is going to take from this is that because all hyperlinks are equal, the best recourse is not to do the story in the first place, less it go viral in ways you didn’t plan (or, if your a Post editor or reporter still want to feel like you have at least a toe in non-advocacy journalism, the goal will be to redesign the website so that stories buried deep inside the print edition can somehow be buried equally as well several levels down from the main webpage, to increase the chances the story won’t be found and go viral before it’s sell-by date has expired).

jon1979 on April 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Dear Pexton,

You wrote:

But that’s so old-media. On The Post’s Web site, the story took off, even though it was prominent on the home page for only a short time. It immediately entered the partisan spin cycle of exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole.

Thanks for the nod,
Irony

kjl291 on April 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Gutsy for them…usually it’s in the back of the paper…at the bottom…smudged!

KOOLAID2 on April 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Back when ObamaCare was being passed, did the Washington Post mention that the claims that it would reduce the deficit were complex at best and that much of the impacts would be unknown?

Or, did they report that it would reduce the deficit?

I’m just wondering since, now that it looks like it’s going to increase the deficit, they feel the need to mention that these sorts of predictions are complex.

JadeNYU on April 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM

This guy sounds like he’s working for the Obama campaign directly.

blink on April 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Only history will show how many were probably getting a check behind the scenes.

I’m holding them in that kind of contempt.

mark81150 on April 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

“entered the partisan spin cycle of exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole.”

Which is to say, people reported that what obama and his minions said in order to get the healthcare monstrosity passed was a fabrication, a lie, a fable- these reports being backed up by facts.

Calling the reporting of facts “distortion” and “exaggeration” is something that someone claiming to be a “journalist” should be very, very ashamed of.

Oh, but we’re talking about the washington compost. Never mind, they have no shame.

Or worth.

GrassMudHorsey on April 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Au contraire. That was a huge selling point. They had to fudge the numbers so much to get this angle, it was an amazing lie. It was “Hey, we can get everybody health care AND it won’t add to the deficit.”

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I was being sarcastic. But yes, Obama, Pelosi and Reid used every conceivable budget gimmick to pretend this would not add a cent to the deficit. Of course the media, including WaPo, did not do any sort of investigative reporting and acted as chearleaders for the legislation. And the end result is an unconstitutional bill, that was a lie at every level, and that within 2.5 years of passage will result in a huge House majority, 60 votes and the presidency for the Democrats turning into a huge House majority, upwards of 53 votes in the Sentate and the presidency for Reputblicans. Oh, and Obamacare will either be found unconstitutional or will be repealed by President Romney.

It was truly amateur hour at the White House for a year and a half (and continues to be)..

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Oh, sorry. I thought you were being serious about the deficit issue.

I am concerned that, if O-Care is NOT found unconstitutional, repeal doesn’t make it through the Senate. The GOP may get the majority but it may take 7 or 8 Dems to vote our way to break a filibuster.

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

By putting the story on page A3, or anything other than the front page, WaPo hid it IMHO. How many casual newspaper readers just look at the front page, and if nothing catches their eye, don’t read the rest of the paper, other than the sports pages, funnies, movie listings, or do the crossword or Sudoku puzzles?

So the CBO says that ObamaCare will cost nearly twice as much, or $1 trillion more, than previously thought. No biggie, according to the WaPo–that’s much less important than Republicans trying to cut off money for condoms for Sandra Fluke’s boyfriends, right?

Steve Z on April 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasn’t worth that.

I imagine it was something like this: “Nah, it’s not front page news that the president was again was UNEXPECTEDLY wrong. Just put it somewhere with a headline that leads readers to believe this is a story about minor revisions in projected costs.”

just ’cause we printed it doesn’t mean we really want people to read it…../

ted c on April 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

C’mon – they had to print/publish it to see what was in it!

DOOF on April 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

The truth is that every complex law change, every annual federal budget, is a risk. They’re all based on assumptions and forecasts that may or may not come true.

Given that they set it up so that they could count ten years of income against a postponed six years of pay-outs, it’s a no-brainer that as the first four of those income years went by the apples-to-apples comparison would show the law costing more and more as real payout costs began to measured against real income. Not complex, and not a forecost that “may or may not come true.” Nice try.

smellthecoffee on April 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I think we have reached the point where if we want the media’s opinion about anything we will ask for it.

Why the Washington Post thinks we give a flip about what they think about anything is beyond me. They are there solely to provide us with facts. The rest of what they provide is not just worthless but actually detracts from the value of the information they provide.

Voluble on April 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

But I’m not sure the truth wins. The truth is that every complex law change, every annual federal budget, is a risk. They’re all based on assumptions and forecasts that may or may not come true. And when they don’t, Congress and the president have to adjust.

Pretend it was Bush.

Good Lord, WAPO and every major media outlet, save Fox, would run a story about farting in a bistro for weeks on end, making something major out of thin air with a full on frontal assault.

BruthaMan on April 17, 2012 at 2:41 PM

True, but I don’t like admitting it, so in the back it goes.

Bob's Kid on April 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM

WaPo ombudsman Pexton writes:

But that’s so old-media. On The Post’s Web site, the story took off, even though it was prominent on the home page for only a short time. It immediately entered the partisan spin cycle of exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole.

Translation:
“Our print editors are either 1.out of touch with online readers’ sense of newsworthiness; or 2.delusional if they believe they can successfully bury unfavorable news that we’re also going to publish online. And “exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole” are terms which apply to any commentary which does not originate from the Washington Post or other like-minded publication.

Barnestormer on April 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

They were thinking, perhaps, no one reads page A-3

MTF on April 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Well, they could change that if they really wanted to.

platypus on April 17, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Well, they won’t be making THAT mistake again now will they? Back to the propaganda, the whole propaganda and nothing but the propaganda.

jnelchef on April 17, 2012 at 2:53 PM

The truth is that every complex law change, every annual federal budget, is a risk. They’re all based on assumptions and forecasts that may or may not come true.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand therein lies the problem…

Maybe we should go back to government providing a basic level of services as proscribed by the Constitution. It’s just crazy enough to work, trust me.

(Please, guys, don’t sick ATTACKWATCH on me. I know I sound radical.)

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

The role of Old Media has changed. Print reporters still provide important information, the original reporting without which no commentary enterprise could survive.

I disagree. Take a look at some of the things New Media has been investigating and reporting on. Matthew Boyle had a lengthy
piece on a bribery scandal involving the sitting governor of the US Virgin Islands. What about Katie Pavlich and Bob Owens with Fast and Furious? There are other examples as well. I predict that we’ll see more and more independent journalists replacing those partisans currently in the press.

joekenha on April 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM

They were thinking, perhaps, no one reads page A-3

MTF on April 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Murdock made page 3 a go to page.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I have always read page A-3 because I know the stories printed there are usually better than the editor’s choice for front page news, especially when you consider the publisher.

stacman on April 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM

“The Affordable Care Act improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially. However, the effects of some of the new law’s provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal, especially in the longer-range future.”

Sounds like Clinton-speak. If the second part of this statement is true, how can they make that unequivocal first statement?

Dee2008 on April 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I am not a lawyer, thank heaven, but I have heard / read that obamacare is illegal because it was passed by “reconciliation” and that process requires a bill to be financially budget neutral- can not add any $ to deficit. This would seem to me to be a MAJOR! problem with the bill. Anyone else have any information, ideas??

Lew in Colorado on April 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Well, that is good to know. So, IF the Supreme Court upholds this 0bamanation, there’s still hope that the GOP can kill it quickly and easily when they take back the White House and Senate.

UltimateBob on April 17, 2012 at 3:13 PM

For the humour-impaired Progressives:

Yesterday Dan Quayle addressed the Summit of the Americas in Colombia and spoke about the conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands. Quayle seemed to tilt toward Argentina by calling the islands the “Malvinas” rather than the Falklands, which Argentina insists is their proper name.
Only Quayle didn’t say Malvinas, he said Maldives–an entirely different group of islands located thousands of miles from the Falklands in the Indian Ocean.

The PunchLine: it was Barack Obama not Dan Quayle

J_Crater on April 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Oh, sorry. I thought you were being serious about the deficit issue.

I am concerned that, if O-Care is NOT found unconstitutional, repeal doesn’t make it through the Senate. The GOP may get the majority but it may take 7 or 8 Dems to vote our way to break a filibuster.

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Yeah, sometimes sarcasm doesn’t come out in writing.

I think that they can repeal it with 51. If they tie it to the budget, they should be able to repeal it. You just write a bill that makes repeal necessary for budget purposes and you can do it with 51.

The House is clearly going to over-turn it, and President Romney will clearly not veto the bill.

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Yeah, sometimes sarcasm doesn’t come out in writing.

I think that they can repeal it with 51. If they tie it to the budget, they should be able to repeal it. You just write a bill that makes repeal necessary for budget purposes and you can do it with 51.

The House is clearly going to over-turn it, and President Romney will clearly not veto the bill.

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Don’t think that would work, not for a full repeal. The Dems flirted with using budget reconciliation to get around Scott Brown’s election, but had to drop it because the Senate parliamentarian said O-Care had provisions that went beyond budgetary issues.

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I think that they can repeal it with 51. If they tie it to the budget, they should be able to repeal it. You just write a bill that makes repeal necessary for budget purposes and you can do it with 51.

The House is clearly going to over-turn it, and President Romney will clearly not veto the bill.

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Its easier than that. The House just pretends ObamaCare does not exist. No funding, no program.

Purse strings, baby. They have consequences.

BobMbx on April 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Ombuttsman?

Archivarix on April 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Don’t think that would work, not for a full repeal. The Dems flirted with using budget reconciliation to get around Scott Brown’s election, but had to drop it because the Senate parliamentarian said O-Care had provisions that went beyond budgetary issues.

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I think it might, if you draft something very short and specific. If you say something to the extent of the statute needs to repealed in order to comply with budget neutrality requirements, I think you can do it with 51 votes.

If not, you go to some of the more conversvative democrats from the 2008 cycle and tell them that if they do not vote for repeal, you will hang the issue around their necks and cause them to lose like Ben Nelson, Claire McCaskill, etc…

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Every story I’ve heard or seen affirms that Medicare appopriations will be reduced over time, with funding being shifted to other health care areas. In any case, since when has governmnet reduced overall spending. Does the Medicare actuary know this?

arand on April 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Its easier than that. The House just pretends ObamaCare does not exist. No funding, no program.

Purse strings, baby. They have consequences.

BobMbx on April 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM

At some point, Republicans will screw up again, and Democrats will be in power again. You do not want this out there because Democrats will re-fund it, revive it, and make the problems associated with Obamacare worse.

milcus on April 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Print reporters still provide important information

Well… not everyone considers school lunch menus or sports scores “important”.

And print reporters can’t really be trusted on anything else.

malclave on April 17, 2012 at 5:03 PM

We really didn’t want that story about Obamacare adding to the deficit to go viral

Tina Korbe… you buried the lede.

Not once did I here a mention about newspapers around the country going broke.

Now I see a clear reason why: they ain’t gettin paid enough to carry water for democrats.

Chaz706 on April 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasn’t worth that.
WTF? Does Pexton seriously imply that a reporter fought her editors to NOT put her work on the front page?

Doesn’t pass the smell test, sorry.

JeffWeimer on April 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM

That was my exact thought, right down to the WTF.

talkingpoints on April 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Why did they print it at all?

WeekendAtBernankes on April 17, 2012 at 8:59 PM