JON LEE ANDERSON

Get out there and do it By Pedro de Alzaga

eCcero
THE BEST JOURNALISM
www.ecicero.es

Copyright 2012 by Pedro de Alzaga Copyright 2012 by eCcero Editor: Helen Wade ebook: Pablo Barrio ISBN (ePub): 978-84-940271-7-8 Collection #REPORTER

eCcero Spain www.ecicero.es - info@ecicero.es

Table of contents
Preface Get out there and do it Jon Lee Anderson Pedro de Alzaga Publisher

PREFACE
The turn of the century has seen the press break away from the traditional models that maintained its core activity. People ask what will happen to newspaperseven what will happen to journalismbut almost no one stops to think beyond the number of job losses in television, radio and daily newspapers to ponder the future of the journalists themselves. This interview hopes to focus on those great forgotten individuals, the journalists who have come out of newsrooms or universities and whom, through different paths, have reached the same destination, where there isnt much work or future, at least for now. As the pieces of the news industry jigsaw regroup, media professionals cant just sit around. A good way of keeping busy is doing what journalists do best: questions. We question the things that are closest to us and, at the same time, are furthest from our reach. What does it mean to be a journalist today? What will journalists be like in the future? Will there be a need for journalists in a society saturated with information? Jon Lee Anderson represents an exemplary type of journalism and embodies most peoples idea of a foreign correspondent. Hes witnessed numerous conflicts around the world, has written biographies of some of the biggest names of our time, and has a unique eye for the heart of a story. Who better to offer his own, committed views on a profession that is undergoing great changes?

6/28

The 17th century cleric and writer Thomas Fuller said, When poverty comes in at the door, love jumps out at the window. Something akin to this can also be said of todays news corporations, whose financial problems have pushed journalism and journalists out of the window, into the vacuum of the tabloids and unemployment respectively. Despite this, Jon Lee Anderson turns his back on defeatism and analyzes the current situation with a critical eye and a great deal of hope to reveal the essence of a trade that is as ancient as it is essential to democracy. Pedro de Alzaga

GET OUT THERE AND DO IT

PEDRO DE ALZAGA: You once said in a speech that you became a journalist to be a witness to the times of your life. Do you think it is still possible? JON LEE ANDERSON: Yes, of course it is possible. I continue to go to the places in the world that interest me and also where I feel I can make a contribution as a journalist and where I think history is turning on its axis. Several things especially interest me. One is the world of conflict, which I've unfortunately come to know fairly well over the decades I've been a reporter. But also I'm interested in doing longer and quieter stories; I don't often get to do them nowadays but I'm interested in doing more of them. And these tend to involve the problems of societies trying to hammer out an identity after wars. Also, perhaps less well known, I have had a longstanding interest in the vanishing wildernesses of our world, and it's something I try to experience for myself whenever I can. Because I've grown up with the understanding that the world is changing before our eyes, and so I want to see as much as I can of the original, the authentic world before it disappears. I do think it's still possible to cover the history of our time, in spite of the way the journalistic economy is changing. Its a paradox: At the same time as there is less money around to fund what we do, there are more platforms on which to publish, to express ones opinions, to be seen and heard. I know that it's become more difficult for many people, however, and that I've been very

8/28

fortunate. I work for the New Yorker magazine. It's very generous. I've been with them 15 years and they continue to fund what I do. And I hope we continue to have an audience as time goes on. But with or without the New Yorker, I hope to continue to report on and write about the world around me. P. A.: But the world is changing in some ways that make it difficult to be the witness to your time. When war is more and more a private business, with embedded reporters, is it easier to cover conflicts now than it was 10 or 20 years ago? J.L.A.: I'm not sure that it is. There is more privatization of warfare. During the age of Bush, the United States and other major Western nations privatized much of their security policy implementation. You now have paramilitary armies that fight on behalf of corporations and for Western powers in places like Somalia or on the high seas against piracy and so forth. There is a private company, XE, former Blackwater, that loads the killer drones on the American aircraft for the CIA, and so forth. There are many ways in which the military world or the world of war and warcraft is becoming merged with corporate interests and that's disturbing, to say the least. However, the world of conflict, such as it is, still remains one that you can report on and cover as an individual. It's dangerous. It's much more dangerous than it used to be in some ways, because journalists have also become targets and because I suppose there are fewer and fewer media organizations that are willing to finance original, authentic, first-time reporting. Because of the new technology of the cameraphone and so on, as well, the model for paying for photographers or for documentary makers has really collapsed and a lot of media

9/28

companies are willing to take virtually for free the products that are being offered by so-called citizen journalists, with a whole spectrum ranging between the very bad and the very good. A lot of it, perhaps most, is very mediocre. It's less so the case with print journalism, but its happening there, too. There has never been many of us that do this, and there arent many of us now. I suppose that yes, our existence is now threatened in a way that it wasnt before. But I am hopeful that for the few of us who do it, what we do, and the integrity of what we do, can survive into the future. P.A.: What is the highest risk for a journalist today? Government pressures, corporate pressures or the economic situation? J.L.A.: I'm not sure that they are indistinguishable. The economic situation creates the corporate pressure in some ways, simultaneously with the advent of the new technologies. So you have a perfect storm situation. That's the real issue that hit the media field and others, like music, as we know. The greatest risk to a journalist is still getting killed, or getting kidnapped, or brutalized by extremists that may seek to use him or her as some kind of trophy victim. It remains the main danger to reporters covering what's going on in the world. It continues to be a danger being out there. P.A.: Lay-offs in newspapers, salaries getting lower, working conditions getting worse What will be the impact of a 'newsroomless' career for a journalist? J.L.A.: It's interesting. I mean, this hasn't happened before. So we are in uncharted waters and I think it's difficult to know what the outcome will be. But, you know, I find myself talking with many

10/28

young journalists who are desperate to be good journalists and to report the world and who seek to learn from someone who is older and has more experience, because the newsroom has already begun to disappear in some ways. Let me backtrack for a second. I think it was my parents or my grandfather's generation, people who were old when I was young, they were the last generation of newspaper people who got their job at fifteen, sweeping out the sawdust on the copy room floor, then graduated through their careers to become reporters on the police beat, and eventually editors and in some cases the editors-in-chief of their newspapers. Some become famous authors. We are talking about the era of Ernest Hemingway and Somerset Maugham. It was an extraordinary period that began to die out probably at the time when I was entering journalism. I met a few of these old-timers, some of whom were wonderful characters. Since then we have seen an ongoing revolution in the media world, both from the new technology and with the changing market place; there has been the competition from television, then the Internet, the invention of machines from the fax and now to the camera phone, Blackberries and the iPads. There are new dangers for the youngsters, the freelancers who want to try their hand at journalism, because there is this technology available and we now have this globalized world where you can get on a plane in London and land in Tripoli or in Damascus or in Mogadishu, in many dangerous places. And you can just get off the plane with an iPhone and 1,200 euros in your pocket and try to do it. And some youngsters are doing exactly that. And they're to be admired, but their lack of experience makes it extremely dangerous for them in a way that it wasn't for my generation. I didn't really have a newsroom either; I

11/28

learned in the field as well, but its not for every-body; it's better for some than others. So yes, we are in uncharted waters, it's difficult to see the way forward. I have this sense that there will be new genres or maybe categories or types of journalists to emerge. It won't all be good but there will be some good to come from this. P.A.: Will they be better? J.L.A.: I don't know if they will be better or not. I think we are at risk of losing some intrinsically important things. Look at the way television, instant news, satellite has altered people's attention span. We now have several generations of westerners in particular who come out of what we can call an entertainment culture. They've been bred on movies, Hollywood productions, computergenerated special effects. This creates a kind of instant gratification that the real world can't provide. The same generation has grown up on video games and continues to play them. It's not a world I know but evidently there are huge numbers of people out there who spend vast hours and lots of money playing videogames on their computers. So there is this kind of interior world of fantasy and instant gratification that simply wasn't there 30 years ago. It's difficult to know how the real worldwhich is the one you and I inhabit as reporters, as writers, as journalistscan compete with that. And that is, I suppose the kind of existential challenge we face. As I said these are uncharted waters and it's difficult to know how it's going to go forward, but I think we must continue to be creative to try to find ways to engage the public and I think that's something all of us increasingly feel the challenge to do, and I think that can be a positive thing. I think it's good to be challenged, it's good not to be stuck in routine; it's

12/28

good not to only stick to one thing, it's good to branch out trying to be creative in different ways. I think that's good for all of us. However, what we will end up with in the end, I'm not sure. P.A.: We are living now in this always-on and always-connected world where everything seems to be close with Google maps, streaming video As a great traveller, do you think that the role of the traveller will remain important in journalism? J.L.A.: Well, I hope so because this virtually-induced sense that the world has been totally conquered is one of the things that, I have to say, disappoints me the most. People who see all of these things through a screen now have a perception of 'knowability' about a world that they haven't, in many cases, physically explored themselves: Oh, yes, we know that, Oh, yes, we have seen that, Oh, yes, we know all about that because we've seen it a million times on YouTube Well, actually, they haven't. And they wont, not until they get 'scratch and sniff' screens on iPads where you actually have a sensory experience. I suppose they will find the way to package that one day. But it will still be a package. You wont actually be there. The difference between viewing something and living through it yourself is night-and-day Let's just take an event: the Haitian earthquake. When I arrived in Port-au-Prince, 24 hours after the earthquake, where 300,000 people died. there were -perhaps, I don't know, nobody knows30,000, 40,000 people still alive trapped under the rubble, dying. At night you could hear their cries. It was the most terrifying experience. Here was a city where one in every four inhabitants had died, most of them in a span of time lasting a mere 43 seconds. And they were continuing to die. And the survivors were

13/28

wandering around like zombies, in absolute shock. And this went on for days amidst many aftershocks and tremors, including some that were full earthquakes where we had to flee from the house we were in. It was terrifying and such terror alters you, I believe, in a fundamental way: emotionally, psychologically just as it did the entire Haitian population. At the same time that I was there, there were of course television journalists filming things, so people in Barcelona, Ulan Bator, Vienna or Chicago were also witnessing these things on television. But they weren't feeling them. They weren't feeling it. They werent smelling the rotting flesh, and they couldn't hear the screams at night. They couldn't feel the way that earth trembled and stripped away all of your feelings of security and your place on earth. That you can only do by going there. You can only do it by being there. We become deadened, on the other hand, by seeing too much virtually, by this deluge of partial sensory perception as provided by television. The screen shows us too much, but it has been denaturalized, somehow, and so we turn off, we seek to replace this torrent of reality that's been neutered and has become white noise. It's depressing to contemplate. But there are many things that if you are there, even in a terrible place or a terrible time, can lift your spirit. You don't come away destroyed in the same way I think you are by watching these events passively on the tele-vision or through the Internet. You are aware that in amidst of all that there is a wider reality, one that is full of people who are surviving and getting on with life. That's why I say you have to be there to feel it. I think the main thing we are missing is the feeling of it, and until we find the way to package feelings it's never going to be the real thing.

14/28

P.A.: How do you think this bad use of technology should be controlled? J.L.A.: I think we need to make people aware of it. People have to learn for themselves that this is actually the case. I think a lot of people have good instincts. I know many young people that know it instinctively even if they've been raised with it, as many are in the West. There are a lot of young people who seek out authentic experiences because they feel they haven't had them. It's all been handed to them not on a plate, but on a screen, and there is this sense that there is nothing apparently left to be known, to be discoveredwhich is a terrible thing. And I have to tell young people: No, no, no, the world is still to be explored. You might think it has all been done, but it hasn't. But unfortunately our technology leaves the impression that there is nothing left to be known and I think that is the greatest challenge we have: overcoming this feeling, this spirit of cynicism which is dangerous and negative for our cultures, parti-cularly amongst the more privileged cultures. All you have to do is travel to a place like Sudan or anywhere in Africa, and you will realize that many, many people, the vast majority of people, continue to live the way they always have, very much bound up in the day-to-day realities of life, looking for fuel to make fire to heat water to have something hot to drink or eat, looking for the food to eat that day, and so on, and so on, and so on But increasingly the metropolitan, urban parts of the world, have a foot in that Third World too, parts of our world that are poor and precarious. With economic decline, people in our overly-privileged existence are also at the edge, while also weirdly inhabiting this shared culture of virtual reality and 24-hour entertainment. It's something we journalists need to

15/28

be aware of and to fight against, alongside enlightened politicians and social legislators. We need to fight for it and make people aware of it in the same way that it's always been a battle to make the majority of people be aware of the need for, let's say, environmental conservation or racial tolerance or gender tolerance These are all battles that take generations to wage. In a way this is not so different: It's about making something that should be obvious, but isnt, vitally important again. And it's up to us to find the ways to find the messages that will hit home with people and make them want to believe in us, to listen to us, to join us, to do things in response to what we urge them to do. It's our battle. P.A.: It will be a difficult battle with new pressures on journalists to become a brand and gain more readers J.L.A.: Yes, most of these trends began with the advent of television, of course, and the beginning of this idea of entertainment culture. Now our newspapers are part of this culture too. I think this came about in direct response to the competition first posed by television and then by the Internet. Newspapers have had to increasingly try to pander to people's need for instant gratification of whatever sort: games, comics, luxury, fantasy These supplements we see in newspapers have changed radically compared from what they were just 20 years ago. This idea that they have to be in color too. Remember that? That was something that began just 15 years or so ago. And then the notion was that they couldn't be big and scary so in Europe all of the newspapers have gone tabloid size. That trend is the same trend that has brought us this idea of the journalist as a brand based on personality and celebrity. We see the way the entertainment world operates. It

16/28

creates stars. Broadway and Hollywood create stars on the stage that pander to its audiences expectation in turn to bring in box office receipts and the same principle has been employed in the news business. It began in television with the figure of the famous anchorman in the United States. Walter Cronkite was the first of them but then he was followed by Dan Rather and David Frost and others. Now we have Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, and many other stars. And we also have politicians who've become news people because of their personality or their cachet, people like Elliot Spitzer and Mike Huckabee, and many others besides. There are entertainment people who seem to inhabit both roles, like Jon Stewart. Why is it that the UN feels the need to appoint actors and actresses as goodwill ambassadors? Why does George Clooney have to go to talk to President Obama about Sudan? Why does Angelina Jolie have to go to Cambodia or Malawi to talk about the plight of children? Why is thiw? Because we have an entertainment culture that's crept into the world of policy and into politics and social legislation and into journalism, and it's been driven by the Hollywood principle of celebrity clout. P.A.: How can we change this trend? J.L.A.: I don't know that you can change it in television. We have alternative forms of television: There is BBC 4 now where you find the worthy documentaries, the ones without celebrities, and so forth. There is still funding available to create a more serious alternative to the increa-singly infantilized television news. And then in print journalism and radio journalism you see it less but there is still the idea that people will listen to a certain person. In

17/28

Britain we have the figure of John Simpson, the doyen of the British foreign correspondents. They have marketed him as a personalityand as the voice of seasoned experienceand it has worked quite well for him; he does have an audience and he also writes books and in various papers and magazines. He is an intelligent man, but it's sort of sad that we have to have a celebrity to get people to watch certain forms of news. Or to pay attention to certain kind of problems. But you are right: that's increasingly the way it's going. I'll go back to Clooney: Only when George Clooney went to Sudan did it suddenly become 'sexy' in a political sense. If not yet as personality-driven, we have a star system in the print world too: There are those who work for more powerful papers and magazines and are better known. There are those who spend more time on the ground or write better or seem to have written better or also appear in other media or have written books that make them more popular this kind of thing. It's probably always been this way, with people who are better known. But I think it is important to be aware that the trend is there and is increasing, and try to find ways to avoid it. The way one writes is a part of it. I write in the first person quite a bit, but I only do so when I feel it absolutely essential to the piece, and the rest of the time I try to be out of the piece. I have a colleague, Larissa McFarquhar, who always cuts herself out of every piece. It's difficult to do. She does that in order that the piece is read in a cinematic way. She's extraordinary and what she does is quite unusual. The better journalists do make an effort not to be the center of the story. Kate Boo, another New Yorker colleague, just wrote a fantastic book about the poor of Mumbai

18/28

in which you are aware that she is there, but the people she meets are the central characters in her storynot herself. And that is the important thing to do. Not to make ourselves the stars, but to make the unknown and otherwise neglected people of the world whom we feel need attention, the stars. P.A.: Do you think journalism will still be a bohemian job, that funny way to starve? J.L.A.: You can still be a bohemian and you can still be a starving artist as a journalist, of course. I am thinking of all the young freelancers, the ones that I have seen lately in Libya, Egypt and all over the Middle East. Most are in their mid-twenties, just out of college, with an iPhone in one hand, a little bit of money, sharing rooms in crappy hotels that cost 15 or 20 dollars a night, working to sell an occasional photograph or a story for a website for almost no money, somehow forging on and continuing to go forward. And meanwhile learning their trade. It's a new version of what I experienced as a young freelancer myself 30 years ago. The challenges for these youngsters are the same as they have always beento try to figure out what the story is and how to cover it. To try to survive and to get someone's attention and to try to get published. These are the big challenges, the first challenges. There are also great new things happening. The electronic media world has provided a few, very good quality sites, magazines, forums for these young people who otherwise would not get a hearing. There is more available to them today in a way than there was for me 30 years ago. There was only a couple of places to be published and it was difficult to get in. Now you can be published much earlier. At the moment it's created a little bit

19/28

of an illusion among some who feel that because they have a blog they can be published anywhere. They still have a long way to go. There is a difference between writing a blog and having it published online and getting a commission to write for, let's say, The New York Times Magazine. P.A.: What will be the role in journalism of #15M, Occupy Wall Street and all these protest movements? They are talking about guerrilla publishing to fill the hole left by conventional journalism. J.L.A.: Yes, this is the idea that you hear so much of now, especially among the comrade citizen journalists, which is that mainstream journalism is an ugly concept, that everybody involved has been bought out by the system or the establishment. It kind of reminds me of the Sixties. Sure, there is plenty of mainstream journalism that is worthy of criticism and I think it's a good thing for it to be challenged. But do I suscribe to all of the crusader citizen journalists' views on mainstream journalism? No, I don't. I work for a mainstream journal, which is the New Yorker magazine. It's not about being part of the system; you have to write well to work for them, that is the main hurdle. I have never been part of the system. I have always been unorthodox. It's different to be a protester in the crowd than being on stage and being able to give a speech to everyone in the crowd. And that's the difference between working for a kind of crusader website with an alternative message, and being able to be unorthodox and have your own point of view but working within the mainstream. It sounds harsh but there is an element of this idea of us and them which I think is just bullshit. However,

20/28

having said what I just said I should also say that there is some very good cutting-edge, outsider journalism going on; there is some good stuff. For instance there is Vice TV and the Vice website, which is very appealing to young people. They are doing something right. Its a kind of guerrilla publishing venture, they came up with a little bit of money to get going and started very small, and now I know a lot of young people who watch and read what they do. They've done stuff on Brazil, Liberia, Libya and Egypt They have their own correspondents, too, very young people who talk just like other young people. And I think that kind of thing is fantastic. It's great. I am a huge champion of new media aimed at young people, or written and presented by young people. I think it's really important that every age group feels included and has something that speaks to them. I do think sadly, we live in a time of the vanishing state. We live in a time in which states as economic powers seem to be collapsing and are being replaced by vastly powerful tycoons, those who in Russia they call oligarchs, and who in the West the Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates They are the new superbillionaires who have extraordinary wealth, unparalleled in the history of mankind, I find deeply troubling to begin with. But one trend we have begun to see which is positive is the example of the superbillionaire who has decided to use his wealth for the common good. So you have a George Soros who created the Open Society which promotes democracy but also promotes bipartisan journalism in countries where it's difficult to do. You have the MacArthur Foundation in the United States, which funds Harper's magazine, one of the best American magazines. Its only real brief is that it is somehow socially progressive and it has a

21/28

point of view but it doesn't really have a political agenda. And you have the foundation which backs ProPublica, which has become the premier outlet for inves-tigative journalism and some of its work has already won a Pulitzer. I think we need to see more of these ventures sponsored by more economically blessed individuals. More of them need to recognize that they cannot take it all to the grave. It would be a great legacy for one or more or some of them to help make sure that good quality journalism and journalists have a future in an information world that is increasingly privatized, increasingly infantilized, increasingly controlled by PR companies for big corporations and by government flaks. We need a bipartisan culture in order to go forward for democracy, not just to thrive but to survive. I look forward to some of these things. But at the same time as I find myself saying it, it's sad to even have to think that's what is required. That is the world we live in, but I am optimistic that we will find a way forward. There is going to be a need to go forward. And I think we will find a way. P.A.: Do you see a future where links to outsiders are necessary? A future with, for instance, Julian Assange as a journalist? J.L.A.: I don't know that he is a journalist. I think he is a Utopian anarchist [laughs]. I met him a few months ago. I liked him personally, but I think Julian Assange is less a journalist than he is a political activist. I personally appreciate having been able to read some of the cables that Wikileaks declassified. To my knowledge there was little of it that was actually harmful to democratic govern-ments, or to democratic societies or democratic ideals; if anything it reconfirmed things that most of us had long suspected. I am all for disclosure especially when it comes to big

22/28

corporations and governments, which have a tendency to become corrupt. You don't have to go to Sudan to find corruption. Just today I was listening to the BBCs Radio 4. It is government funded, but nonetheless independent and admired around the world for its record for journalistic innovation, expertise and impartiality. At any rate, Radio 4 was reporting that Barclays Bank, one of the world's greatest banks, has just been fined nearly 300 million dollars for insider trading, which means that these men who own sleek Jaguars, wonderful houses in the country and have plummy accents, who run so much of the world's economy and who have become extremely wealthy from all the rest of us, are busy sitting around doing little deals with each other to increase their profits. I think that it is deeply important that we know those things, therefore I thought that what Assange did with Wikileaks was largely a good thing. However, I don't think it was journalism, exactly. I think investigative journalism should always be around, that there should be more of it. We need more of it and if we would have more of that we don't need to have leaks of government documents. Of course there has always been a certain amount of news from leaked documents and therefore there is a hypocrisy in the reaction to Wikileaks by the U.S. government, because in the United States intentional leaks to the news media by government officials, including those in the White House, is a longstanding tradition. Wikileaks has shown that two can play at that game. But I don't think Assange is a role model for journalism. He is rather a model for a new kind of political crusader that somehow emerged from the technological revolution, the cyberworld, since he began as a hacker, and because he is, I believe, fundamentally

23/28

against most forms of established government, and against official secrecy. I myself wouldn't go so far as to suggest that all secrets are bad, I think some may well be important to have, even in relatively open, democraticgoodsocieties. P.A.: Probably now, somewhere in the world, a new Jon Lee Anderson is being born. How do you think his career as a journalist will be? J.L.A.: Hopefully, he or she will be much better [laughs]. Harder working, more consistent, better read, more erudite, better able to do everything Someone who only needs two hours a day to sleep instead of five or six I think increasingly we will have a new kind of global citizen, so to speak. Many of them are young now and are still finding their way, but we do have a new kind of global citizen: mixed blood, mixed race, raised in several countries, polilingual, conversant in several cul-tures, part of this new global identity but dissa-tisfied by the homogeneousness and market driven aspects of globalization and desperately anxious to find the authentic and the original that lie buried within all of that. And I think that paradox, that conflict that we are beginning to see, will create a dissatisfaction, a yearning, an intellectual curiosity that will bring up new types of people asking new types of questions and trying to tell stories and inform the world in new kinds of ways. P.A.: And what would be your advice to him or her? J.L.A.: Get out there and do it. People say I really want to write. Well, you have to sit down and write. That's what you have to do. You can't do it by talking about it. You have to get out there and

24/28

do it. And if you want to know the world, you have get out there and explore it. Take the risk, take a deep breath and jump.

JON LEE ANDERSON

Jon Lee Anderson (born January 15, 1957) is a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine. Anderson is renowned for his profiles of such political leaders as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as for his war reporting from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and other countries. Anderson is also the author of a number of books, including Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, The Fall of Baghdad, and Guerrillas: Journeys in the Insurgent World.

PEDRO DE ALZAGA
Pedro de Alzaga worked as a reporter, writer and editor at the online editions of major newspapers in Spain (elmundo.es, adn.es, elpais.com, abc.es, among others) since the early days of online journalism in this country. He is author of 'La palabra escrita', published in 2010, a compilation of interviews with journalists from US and UK about the future of the press in the digital age. Pedro is currently Deputy Director of 'Cuartopoder.es', the first online daily blogging newspaper in the Spanish language. He is also founder and manager of 'Iberoamerica.net', a website that monitors information on social media.

ECICERO
eCicero is a long-form journalism ebooks publisher, between 5,000 and 30,000 words. Ebooks can be purchased at online booksellers for your Kindle, iPad/iPhone, Nook or Android and Windows devices. #Reporter is a collection of interviews to top journalists. www.ecicero.es

@Created by PDF to ePub