аЯрЁБс>ўџ „†ўџџџ‚ƒџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС7 јП2ZbjbjUU "О7|7|2VџџџџџџlфффффффјŒŒŒŒ ˜$јЖШоооооооŽ       $Х х6Д фоооооД ц ффооЩ ц ц ц оЊфофоŽ ц оŽ ц Œц r ффr оМ АЃ9ЬпХј”Œˆ Nr r п 0r ж r ц јјффффйServing Educators Around The World  INCLUDEPICTURE "http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/mlr/readings/graphics/movie.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET Media Literacy Review Media Literacy Online Project - College of Education - University of Oregon - Eugene   Media Literacy and Public Access TV Training  Authors: Jesikah Maria Ross and Barbara Osborne Source: Stratagies For Media Literacy Forward Public access television advocates seek to democratize the media by empowering community members to make their own TV programs free of the conventions and restrictions inherent in commercial programming. Ironically, given the opportunity to produce and cablecast, many access users uncritically mimic the conventions of commercial broadcasting, limitations and all. Access has provided the public with the power to produce and to be heard, but over the last two decades it is clear that equipment, technical knowledge, and an airdate are only half the battle. Media literacy (learning to both critically analyze and produce media) teaches people to identify and to question the language of television, its conventions, and its political and economic underpinnings. It also teaches people the nuts and bolts of video production. Obviously, access training already teaches the production part of media literacy. Learning to frame a shot, selecting takes in editing, and other aspects of the production process reveal the "constructedness" and values inherent in all television production. But most of the time, access trainers don't make these connections explicit or contextualize them within the framework of the dominant model of commercial television. Without these connections, which they often do not make their own, access users tend to produce what many trainers refer to as "broadcast clones." As Boston freelance producer Tim Wright put it, "Access has been very good at making users media literate inasmuch as they become aware of how TV is made." But, he adds, "They've been less successful in getting users to reflect on dominant TV forms, their limitations, why they exist, and who they serve." Most trainees come to access interested in creating a TV show, not in becoming media literate (a term that is more than likely to be unfamiliar to them). The ability to not only produce but also to analyze television programs, however, would make them more effective access producers. It would also help the access movement to achieve its mission of democratizing the media. The question, then, is how can access centers create media literate users? Over the last month, we contacted access centers to see what kinds of strategies trainers were using to integrate the analytic aspects of media literacy into production classes. What we discovered is that although media analysis is of virtually universal concern, little if anything has been codified. In Chicago and Portland, programs are being formulated that will incorporate critical viewing techniques into access production training. In Boston, a coalition of access trainers are beginning to work together to develop a more comprehensive media literacy program. Integrating analysis into hands-on production training provides a unique set of difficulties. Access classes need to teach a diverse group of people a lot of information in a short amount of time. As Paul Congo at ACTV in Austin notes, "It's difficult to command people's attention for very long without letting them work with the equipment. To add media literacy is a dilemma. Dowe add more hours, and if not, what do we eliminate?" If access wants to create media literate producers, centers will have to go beyond the traditional method of learning by doing(that is, teaching producers how to push the right buttons) to include teaching critical viewing skills through screenings and discussions. We need to make the leap from "learning by doing "to a new method of learning by doing and discussing. This report is intended as a preliminary survey of efforts by access centers to teach analysis alongside production. It is hardly exhaustive. We hope that the ideas outlined here can be used by access centers as a kind of "tips sheet" to strengthen the critical viewing component in their own training programs. Integrating Media Literacy into Production Training Virtually all access training programs involve an orientation, pre-production planning, field and/or studio production, and editing. Below are some strategies that access trainers have used to integrate the analytical concepts of media literacy into production classes. Orientation The orientation session is the most common time to communicate the analytical concepts of media literacy to trainees. It is the one, talk-heavy moment in the training process when trainers don't emphasize hands-on experience, a nd it's a perfect time to get the ball rolling building critical viewing and thinking skills. During orientation, many access trainers provide an overview of access and discuss self-representation, access as a First Amendment forum, effective message-making and intended audiences, the distinction between broadcasting and narrow casting, and the importance of local community communication. Some access centers use clips from commercial broadcasting to prompt discussion and illustrate TV's conventions. Paula Manleyat TVCA in Portland shows a brief tape of commercial clips and discusses the values communicated in the messages, their implicit ideological perspective, and she questions whether commercial media represent trainees' reality. These are some of the questions she asks: How do the clips make you feel? Why? What are the messages? What are the values that are communicated? What are the biases? Who is being represented? How are they represented? Does this representation correspond with your experience of reality? Did you notice any special production techniques that were used to heighten our response? At 'Olelo Access in Honolulu, Ross Braver poses a rhetorical question to trainees: How can a person get her/his message on TV? He then provides the following examples to illustrate the limited options found in the broadcast model. 1) People can pay their own way ala the infommercials of Ross Perot. Buy your own time and produce your own message. The moral of this story: If you have the money, you have the access. 2) People can send network stations a press release requesting media coverage. In this case the "event" must be considered newsworthy and coverage will be framed by the editorial powers of the station. 3) People can approach the networks and submit to the restrictions mandated by commercial sponsorship. 4) People can approach PBS. In addition to being highly competitive, in this scenario not only do producers generally need to focus on non-controversial subject matter, but they also need to secure their own funding as well as cater to their sponsor's wishes. These orientation exercises begin to illustrate key concepts of media literacy: 1) TV represents rather than reflects reality 2) Commercial TV is a business and is driven by commercial priorities 3) TV contains value messages 4) Individual viewers may interpret media messages differently. Most orientations include a screening of sample programs made at the access center. Trainers can take this opportunity to select and discuss clips that likewise demonstrate: 1) How access producers have total editorial control and can address issues in ways (form and content) that couldn't/wouldn't be done on a commercial channel. 2) How access producers can represent themselves, cover their own events, report their own news and information, as well as show their own point of view and how such programming is inherently different than what can be found on commercial channels. 3) How access television is a local, electronic soapbox, that provides a means of expression for members of a community and, in this way, fosters community development. This "show and tell" discussion exercise positions access as a counterpoint to commercial television, affording trainees a deeper understanding of the differences (and reasons for the differences) between the commercial and non-commercial systems. Pre-Production Kiya Bodding at TVCA uses Jason Simon's videotape Production Notes, a series of ads with the agencies' notes in voice-over), as a catalyst for a discussion of producers, audiences, and messages. Many of the same questions that Paula Manley uses in the(preceding) orientation session can be usefully posed after the screening to stimulate the discussion. Here are some additional questions: What's the producer's purpose? Who are the producers trying to reach? What makes the clip effective or ineffective? How would you change the clip's content or form? Buffalo Access' Armin Heurich uses the first session of their four-session training to challenge the way in which the commercial media purport to represent others (or simply do not represent them), as well as interrogating the media's claims to "truth" and "objectivity." He uses access tapes as a foil to broadcast television that illustrate point of view, narrowcast programming. Heurich shows examples from First Nation news, a native American news program, to focus a discussion around why shows like this aren't on commercial TV. After this discussion, he has trainees identify a hypothetical project and do a pre-production brainstorm, listing the goals of the production, the intended audience, and how to make an impact on the community with the message. Lisa Horner in Tucson has a producers' class in which she invites a veteran access producer to show work and field questions regarding production decisions s/he made to communicate the message most effectively. She uses these presentations to raise the issue of narrowcasting vs. broadcasting, free speech and editorial control. In order to draw out the differences between broadcast and access formats, she poses questions like: What was the message or intent of the program? Who are you trying to reach? Tell us about some of your production choices. What worked or was most rewarding to you? What would a broadcast approach to this subject look like? How is it an example of an access production? How did it have a community impact? Ross Braver in Honolulu shows tapes that contrast formats and conventions. He shows the same subject presented in different formats (music video, news show, game show) to demonstrate form-content relationships. In addition, he compares conventions. For instance, he will show a children's baking show in which every transition is signaled by a star wipe, and then show a news program that uses the wipe in the same way. "Why does it look okay in one show and not in another?" he asks. "What do wipes mean to a viewer? What are the rules of TV's language? What happens when the rules are broken?" Field/Studio Production Kiya Bodding has trainees produce 30-second portraits of one another as a first production exercise which replaces the portion of the first class in which students introduce themselves. The following is a description of how she does this exercise: Using a camcorder and external microphone, give each student 30 seconds in front of the camera to introduce her/himself (e.g.: via a short autobiographical statement). Place the camera on a tripod and feed the signal into a monitor so that the other students not working equipment can participate by observing. Briefly go over the responsibilities of the following positions: the floor manager gives the cues (stand-by, roll tape, 5-4-3-2-1, action...then, using a stop watch, counts the talent down at 25 seconds), the sound operator checks the microphone and monitors the sound. The camera operator frames the shot and starts and stops the recording, and the talent introduces her/himself. Assign some students to the positions. Give the subject/talent the external microphone. Do a recording and then play it back and discuss it. Students learn from this exercise that their "natural" way of framing a shot or otherwise using the cameras, and the way they naturally behave in front of a camera my not actually look "good "or "natural." Trainees watch each other's portraits, critiquing how the productions look and sound. The trainer stimulates the discussion/critique by asking questions like: What do you notice about how the shots are framed? How is the sound quality? Does it make a difference how you hold the microphone? Does the talent speak to the viewer? Does it make a difference where the talent looks? Is 30 seconds enough time to get information across? How do different shots and different audio levels make you feel? What do you remember about the portrait? (With some portraits, the visual so overwhelms the aural that trainees don't remember anything the person has said.) This exercise helps students begin to identify the syntax of the television language, build their vocabulary of production terms and think about production methods while learning to operate the equipment. Rotate all the students through the exercise having each student teach the next student who takes her/his place how to work the equipment or perform the job. Here is another exercise that Bodding uses to help students recognize the constructedness of television. Discuss the concept of "noddies" (when the interview just sits and nods for reaction shots after the interview has been shot, in order to use the "noddies" as cutaways in the editing process). Then have one trainee to be the interviewer and another trainee as the interviewee. Have them record an interview and each time the camera cuts to the interviewer for a reaction shot, have her/him make a different look (bored, crazed, smiling, knowing, sad/tragic). Playback the production and discuss how different "noddies" effect the message and style of the program. Talk about the different types of "noddies" typically seen on broadcast television. Ask them how these "noddies" effect the message and style of the broadcast program. A third production exercise is to have trainees shoot a short, simple narrative (such as buying a soda from a soda machine)using in-camera edits as Ross Braver does. This exercise illustrates that narratives are artificial constructs that compress time and manipulate images and sounds. It also forces trainees to question what's essential to the story and what needs to be left out. Braver reinforces these ideas by viewing and discussing the trainees' productions and by showing clips from commercial media. jesikah maria ross at DCTV has trainees watch 10 minutes of a commercial news show. She then leads a discussion in which participants identify the conventions of the program: anchors, shot types, roll-ins, peppy music. Issues of representation arise. Are the people on the news like us? Are our lives covered on the news? She stimulates a discussion about soundbites, gory lead stories, and commercial breaks. Later, she gives trainees four hours to produce their own version of the news. Often, they choose to parody or break traditional broadcast news conventions. Various other strategies for illustrating analytical concepts during production training were suggested to us by trainers. For instance: In teaching about how to use the camera, frame high and low angles and ask how this affects the interpretation of an image. Ross Braver deliberately sets up a shot with too much head room. Trainees begin to identify production techniques that look "wrong" (shaky camera work, abrupt audio) and Braver reminds them that once they are able to identify the conventions of broadcast, they are free to choose to use them or not. Editing Editing classes are the ideal place to point out how messages a reconstructed through the selective ordering of images and sounds. To reinforce this concept, Braver has his classes re-edit an already-shot interview (complete with cutaways) or "junk tapes "provided by the cable company, rearranging the order of events. They then view and discuss what they've edited. Discussion centers on: The ethical choices involved in manipulating sounds and images. The power of editorial choice. The ability to under/misrepresent an event or what subjects said. How the realities constructed through editing are not "windows on the world." Sally Cloninger, a professor at Evergreen State College in Washington State, teaches analysis through production by having her students practice editing by cutting a tape that critiques the mainstream media's representation. For instance, she provides off-air copies of several TV sitcoms and asks trainees to cut the material into a critique of the representation of women on television. Audio editing also presents an opportunity to juxtapose different sound tracks. Wendy Warren, Cable Communications Manager in Yakima, Washington, says she shows a clip from Jaws and then asks users to think about how the scene would feel if the music were cheerful instead. Other Ideas Trainee Homework. When Wendy Warren has trainees over a period of a few days, she asks them to watch TV specifically looking at dialogue, camera angels, pacing, etc. Lisa Horner in Tucson also has producers do homework which involves watching a program with the volume off and visually analyzing it. Trainees are told to determine what the message is and how it is conveyed through images. Summer Programs for Kids. Austin Community Television, as part of its role as a "community communications center," provides a summer recreation program for kids. They've been showing music videos, broadcast TV, and exemplary alternative works to kids in order to prompt discussion of how meaning is constructed. Paul Congo says they're teaching "the whole syntax of cinema" as well as the values imbedded in the images, and the tacit intentions of the producer. Each class includes a technical skills, viewing and critical analysis component. The recreation programs have also involved students in keeping media usage logs and fieldtrip/discussions of Menace II Society. Training Production Trainers. In Boston, freelance producer and teacher Tim Wright held a workshop of two 3-hour sessions this spring for approximately ten access trainers in the Boston area. Wright is presenting his workshops this fall in southeastern Massachusetts and Cape access centers at C3TV in South Yarmouth. The workshop was primarily designed to raise awareness among trainers. Participants decided to form a media literacy "club "that is compiling a reel of "illuminating examples" in the hopes that they can persuade their respective systems to formally adopt media literacy. In future meetings, the group hopes to devise specific strategies for integrating media literacy into basic access training. Paula Manley at TVCA in Portland invited Deborah Leveranz from Southwest Alternate Media Project in Houston and David Moragne, from Strategies for Media Literacy in San Francisco, to train her staff in the integration of media literacy skills into training. Last year, Chicago Access got a grant from a local funder to integrate media literacy into access training. They are in the process of creating four tapes (one of each production class level). Each tape includes 8-10 segments of 2-3 minutes that include off-air footage, corporate video, alternative TV, access video, and an interview with access guru, George Stoney. The tapes are accompanied by study guides designed for access trainers. Program Director Greg Boozell says that they realized that they couldn't simply throw media literacy at their trainers and assume they would automatically understand it. jesikah maria ross is Production and Volunteers Coordinator at Davis Community Television in Davis, California. Barbara Osborne is a writer and teacher in Los Angeles. To share techniques for including media literacy access into your program, contact jesikah maria ross, Davis Community Television, 1623 5th Street, Davis, CA 95616. 916.757.2419. A Network Resource List of Media Literacy Access Trainers Public access stations are still the best bargain for obtaining the technical training to incorporate video into educational programs. Call your local cable company and inquire about access training. If you are lucky enough to be in one of the following cities, you may receive media literacy training, too. Kiya Bodding and Paula Manley Tualatin Valley Community Access Twin Oaks Technology Center 1815 NW 169th Place, Ste. 6020 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 503.629.8534 Greg Boozell Chicago Access Corporation 322 South Green Street Chicago, IL 60607 312.738.1400 Ross Braver 'Olelo 960 Mapunapuna St., 2nd Floor Honolulu, HI 96819 808.834.0007, Ext.1717 Sally Cloninger Evergreen State College Olympia, WA 98505 206.886.6049 Paul Congo Austin Community Television (ACTV) P.O. Box 1076 Austin, TX 78767 512.478.8600 Armin Heurich Buffalo Community TV 101 LaSalle Avenue Buffalo, NY 14214-1494 716.838.8196 John Higgins 137 1/2 West Hubbard Ave. Columbus, OH 43215 614.294.3109 Lisa Horner Tuscon Community Cable Corporation 124 East Broadway Tucson, AZ 85701 602.624.9833 Benita Makuch ACTV 394 Oak Street Columbus, OH 43215 614.224.2288 Fernando Moreno Quote...Unquote 1905 Lomas NW Albuquerque, NM 87104-1207 505.243.0027 Chuck Peterson Grand Rapids Television 50 Library Plaza NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503-3219 616.459.4788 Chuck Sherwood C3TV 307 Whites Path South Yarmouth, MA 02664 508.394.2388 Karen Toering MATA 1610 N. Second Street Milwaukee, WI 53212 414.225.3560 Thomas Tyler People TV 190 14th Street NW Atlanta, GA 30318 404.873.6712 Wendy Warren Yakima Community Television 1103 S. 24th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 509.575.6092 Tim Wright Jamaica Plain Newsreel 53 Peter Parley Road Boston, MA 02130 617.524.5076  This report was funded by the National Alliance for Media Education (NAME) and presented at The Alliance for Community Media Conference, July 21-25, 1994. Reprinted permission jessica maria ross and the National Alliance for Media Education. "#$Ž‘ІЇћќ§./01aY1Z2Zѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕшшт„0§]„0§ „а„а[$\$]„а^„а „а„а]„а^„а 1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %АDdрршш№ЮВ № S №ЊAСŠџУhttp://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/mlr/readings/graphics/movie.gif№€b№_вњЧхчТїw}jх'Vš>џ;D‹n№3вњЧхчТїw}jх'Vš>џ‰PNG  IHDR TgЧPLTEџџ€€€ЅŸ€кзЪџџџџџџџ‹.иbKGDˆH cmPPJCmp0712OmЗЅ IDAT(Я•ЯM Ф `w]›јЎ№ёz‚ЎЛыѕ'Qќ)v“BСy/КЫ=цp"ЉipмNRQqїеAJN+ш…ЄП`ЁйRВЬ–~у^[Ж=њІкŒкэqС{Ѓ•ŠOa=а XРBЩRГ…,ђš8 Жш–mОщ„6М–9ž'3ZŽf•ЪБ~ОНŒSШ[Ќ9‘IENDЎB`‚œDdшє <№P № 3 №€€€Пџ3"ё”•П((№€œDdшє <№P № 3 №€€€Пџ3"ё”•П((№€œDdшє <№P № 3 №€€€Пџ3"ё”•П((№€ i8@ёџ8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font:^`ђ: Normal (Web)ЄdЄd[$\$2VОџџџџќ§/1ˆ‘ТЯ?З  = № b›апь/Zф4зЂ `жѕ6х…)" И!^"Z% '<(‘*Њ*Ѓ+х.S0C2Џ3ѕ6є8,;^=g=я>п?eAxB…B DЌFыGxI{JоL:NЉOJPЉPQMQЈQRKRЋRюRESЊSѕS@TŠTцTU1V4VЉ0€€™0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€2ZYТ"xM2ZZ\]^2Z[#Ž2VCtџЌ:Ajtž!.З Л авбй8=DQ1 5 6 = n"s"t"{"м#у#`&m&Њ*Ў*Џ*Ж*Э3д3љ340474Ћ4В466o6v6Д6Л6є8ћ8ќ8999X:b:х?ю?ЉIБIюIѕIЎJДJуKщKILPLоLхLцLыLьL№LйMрMсMцMчMыMЉO­OЎOЕOOPVPЖPЛPРPЪP QQЈQ­QЎQЕQWR]RЋRБRВRИRSSћSTюUѕUіUћUќUV4V-0ёјЦ ш ioоэЮЯ)!-! $$И&ь&ю&'++Ѕ-І-Н6У6h7u7є8ћ8Т9Ч9g<p</?M?WC•C D%DюEFЌFЩFOHVHыK1LоLхLсMцMюUѕU4V3333333333333333333333333331V4Vџџsara=\\mbii\shared\Education\Media Literacy in Access Training.docќ§4V–џ@€1V1Vрхњ1V1V2V`@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"qˆ№аh(›f)›fw G$—$№ ДД20GW2ƒQ№џџ~Serving Educators Around The World Media Literacy ReviewMedia Literacy Online Project - College of Education - University of Osarasaraўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0ф˜ ,<HTh x„   Ќ ИФЬдмфServing Educators Around The World Media Literacy ReviewMedia Literacy Online Project - College of Education - University of Oervsarang araara Normal.dotcsaral.d1raMicrosoft Word 9.0r@FУ#@АщЬпХ@іЌ4ЬпХw GўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎDеЭеœ.“—+,љЎИt hpˆ˜  ЈАИР Ш SфMedia Bridgesr—$GW  Serving Educators Around The World Media Literacy ReviewMedia Literacy Online Project - College of Education - University of O Title  8@ _PID_HLINKSфAФWEhttp://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/mlr/readings/graphics/movie.gif  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_ўџџџabcdefgўџџџijklmnopqўџџџstuvwxyўџџџ{|}~€ўџџџ§џџџ§џџџ…ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF ^•9ЬпХ‡€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ`1TableџџџџџџџџhWordDocumentџџџџ"ОSummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџrDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџzCompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ ^•9ЬпХ ^•9ЬпХўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq