Barbara J. Tanabe: Interview #3

Page 39

not only in the kinds of stories that are carried, the types of individuals who are interviewed as leaders, but those who provide the news or deliver the news because it makes a very visible impact on the community. I've always felt that was important, and so I felt it was very necessary.

Plus, Hawaii was just a different community. I'd never operated in a community outside of the mainland U.S. in which I was not a minority. Quite frankly, after years of growing up as a minority and always having to be very careful about what I said and being almost not embarrassed, but very sensitive about how I presented my Japanese tradition, you get a little tired of it. You want to be in a situation where you don't have to spell your name out to everybody, or when you're at a department store, people don't come up to you and ask if you're the employee, and that happened all the time.

Moorhus: Or if you speak English?

Tanabe: Or if I speak English. That was quite a common question, and it just kind of gets to you. Not that it bothered me to a great deal, but after a while you just want to know what it's like not to be questioned like that all the time.

So we took this major leap and we came over here. I told you that when I got into television, friends of mine asked me, "Isn't it insulting that they hired you only because you were a non-white, non-male?" and I said, "No, because it's my foot in the door." This was a similar situation, where someone calls up totally out of the blue and wants to hire me because I'm still a non-white, non-male, so I haven't been able to shake that. But again, my feeling was, I can do the job and it is another opportunity and I'm going to do it and I'm going to do it well. That's why we felt that we would come. We came on June eighteenth, as I recall, and then I started working on the twenty-first, so in three days.

Moorhus: So in both of those situations, your being female and non-white was a plus.

Tanabe: Oh, yes, definitely a plus. There was no doubt about that.

Moorhus: That's interesting, because, of course, it runs counter to many of the other women I've talked to, where being female was always something they had to fight against. It was never an opportunity.

Tanabe: But I think that's what we mean by affirmative action, that there have been barriers established through whatever you want to call it, whether it's institutional racism or fear or lack of understanding. Whatever you want to call it, there were barriers there against minorities going into certain fields and against women reaching certain levels of a profession. If affirmative action could in some way make a dent in that by giving preferential treatment to those who are capable, then I think it was a great program. It helped me a lot. It helped many, many other individuals in all kinds of professions, not just journalism. So I think it was very necessary to at least break down some of the barriers, give minorities a chance, because there are institutional barriers that run so deep it's very difficult to crack.

Now, in this situation, I remember you asked me did I have problems as a female. I think I was more concerned with problems of a minority, and being female was just another handicap here and I'm just going to have to resolve it. And so in many ways, I think I was able to handle it a little bit better than if I were, for instance, a white female and not having to also wear this minority label and being blamed for a war and all those other past sins. If I were a white female

Page 41

Now twenty years later, yes, there are more people, but still not as many top executives or representatives as maybe there should have been. So for me to all of a sudden appear on television in a very prominent role to them was almost like, "Hey, we did it. We got one of our own in there." I was a generation younger, but it really was because of things that they had done. They were my father's generation, and they were the ones that really took the brunt of having to prove themselves during the war. I'm sure you've heard about the 442nd* and all of the things that the Japanese-Americans had to go through. They were the ones that really made the ultimate sacrifice of serving in combat while their families were under severe discrimination back at home. But they were able to do it, and then when they came back, they went to school and they broke down even more barriers. So they really were the fighters of the Japanese-Americans, and in many ways I was the one that was able to eat the fruits. The seeds that they planted blossomed into wonderful things, and I was able to take advantage of it.

I always remembered that, and so whenever I did anything, I was extremely careful that it was always the best possible job that I could do as a journalist, not necessarily most favorable to locals or Japanese-Americans or anything like that, because journalists are supposed to be objective. And so I did the best job that I could, and I was as professional as possible.

Moorhus: Was there any suspicion or resistance? Were you identified with the mainland, and did that have any negative connotations here?

Tanabe: I suppose I was identified with the mainland because of the way I speak. I don't speak pidgin, which is sort of like the local shorthand version of English. I still don't have the hang of it after all these years. Instead of saying, "How are you? Did you have a nice day?" it's just, "How's it?" [Laughter.] I've always felt that it's a very colorful language, and I think it's wonderful that people can use it and communicate among themselves with it, and yet they can switch off to standard English if necessary. I think it's a wonderful ability to have. So, yes, they identified me as a mainlander, and at first, especially during the war, there may have been some kinds of tensions, but I don't think it was true in my case. I mean, I get ribbings every now and then about, "Aha, another kotonk."

Moorhus: Another what?

Tanabe: Kotonk. That's the nickname that they use for mainland Japanese-Americans.

Moorhus: How do you spell that?

Tanabe: K-O-T-O-N-K. But I think it's more in good humor, fun, more than anything else. I remember having very long discussions with friends of mine here in Hawaii about the way I sometimes bristle when we talk about how Asians and blacks are treated. To them, it's no big thing. It was so much water off a duck's back. I said, "How could you not get involved in issues like busing, for instance?"

They said, "Because it doesn't affect us here. Barbara, we know who we are. We don't have to prove ourselves anymore."

______________________ * 442nd Infantry Regiment - U.S. Army unit made up of AJAs (Americans of Japanese Ancestry) from Hawaii who volunteered for service in World War II. Among members of the 442nd who served with distinction in the European theater were (later) Senator Daniel Inouye and (later) Senator Spark Matsunaga.

Page 43

just for looks. And so in many ways, from the audience perspective, I was able to downplay the sexism label.

Within the news operation, I think I still had to work on it, because there were questions about whether I had the ability to be a manager in the news operation. Plus, there was already a news director, so that was a little bit more sensitive, a more delicate area that I had to work on.

Moorhus: And you came in as an assistant news director and co-anchor immediately?

Tanabe: Yes, assistant news director and co-anchor.

Moorhus: This co-anchor was at what time?

Tanabe: It was on at, I think it was, 5:30. I can't remember what the exact time was, but it was early evening newscast and the late evening newscast. Over here, the late news is at ten. It's this early-to-bed, early-to-rise market. And so I did both in a co-anchor situation.

Moorhus: Did you get to do some reporting, as well, from the beginning?

Tanabe: Yes, I did, from the very beginning, because it was my choice. The news director did not. His background was mostly reading the news. It really wasn't in reporting. There are different ways that people come into that role. As you know, in the seventies some people just looked good and sounded good, and so therefore they become what we call talent or readers. There are others who are very serious journalists, and I considered myself always to be a reporter first and an anchor second, and so I did a lot of reporting all the time and writing.

Moorhus: We want to talk about some of the stories that you did. One of the things you mentioned after our interview last week was one of the things this job did is give you opportunities for a lot of travel.

Tanabe: Oh, yes, it did.

Moorhus: And we'd like to talk about that. One of the first trips you mentioned was to Guam.

Tanabe: Yes, after the fall of Vietnam, after Saigon was captured [April 30, 1975] and it became Ho Chi Minh City. There were thousands and thousands of Vietnamese from South Vietnam who had aided the American cause who now feared for their lives, and they escaped by whatever means possible—boats, planes, however, to get out of the country. The United States and the United Nations refugee high commissioner—and, you know, details now are hazy to me. But they were able to use Guam as sort of a base to process these refugees and then find sponsors for them and move them into the United States or other countries which would accept the Vietnamese refugees.

I felt it was important for me as a reporter to be able to cover this event for our audience in Hawaii. This goes back to, again, it may not have been an issue that people were talking about all the time here in Hawaii, because it doesn't affect them. "So what? There are a bunch of refugees coming out of Vietnam." But it's something that we should be talking about, because we as a nation, in our own way, created this problem, and now we have a group that, whether it's our responsibility or not, we were going to help out in some way. It was postwar effects that we

Page 45

I think it was a real lesson for me on humanity. We humans are survivors, regardless of where we have our roots or regardless of what sex we are. We are survivors, and that was a very good illustration for me.

Moorhus: To do that story, you emphasized as a local station you didn't have the kind of supports around you. Did you have to really fight to get to do that story, or was that something that the news director approved rather easily?

Tanabe: It was something that caused a lot of concern, but I was able to convince them it was well worth it. I can't remember how I did the argument at the time, but I was able to convince them, and part of the reason is because I was also able to talk an airline into flying us down without any payment or fees, in return for them being identified. Now, this is normally not done in journalism, but in this particular case that was the only way to get down, and I felt that since they were not an integral part of the story itself, but were the means of getting us there, that it didn't really compromise the story.

Moorhus: Was this an American carrier?

Tanabe: Yes. It was Pan American at the time.

Moorhus: You said that they provided—

Tanabe: The transportation.

Moorhus: For the two of you?

Tanabe: Yes.

Moorhus: How long were you there?

Tanabe: About three days, not very long.

Moorhus: What kind of a reaction did the story get here in Hawaii?

Tanabe: Pretty positive. Again, remember that we were still the number-three station, and so the audience isn't very wide. But what it does is, it causes people to think that, "Here's a TV station that's really doing something different, very progressive, looking beyond Hawaii." And so it was more important for the reputation that at least we attempted it, and some people saw it and they talked about it, more important than getting overnight ratings that were huge.

Moorhus: Do you suppose that was one of the arguments you used, that this would put you—

Tanabe: I'm sure I did. [Laughter.]

Moorhus: It sounds like a pretty good case you were able to make.

Tanabe: Yes, yes.

Moorhus: The next trip that you talked about was to Japan in the early seventies. You said you did some work with the military issues.

Page 47

and you don't go around questioning your commander-in-chief when an order is given. You took an oath when you joined and you were there to support your country. Although I didn't always agree, and still don't, with a lot of American policies dealing with foreign issues, I think it's important that when you are in a position such as U.S. soldiers and the U.S. military, that you do your best to support your commander-in-chief.

Now, when you come back here to the United States, you can do all you want, I think, and should, to question the way the policy is arrived at and implemented, and that's what democracy is all about. It's a free exchange of ideas and the ability to be able to criticize when you, as an expert, know that it may not have the proper consequences. And so I think it was important that we support the military, and I've always felt that way, and still do. But I'm also the first to speak out when I feel that there are things that need a second look. Anyway, that was my Japan trip.

Moorhus: But it does also raise the way you functioned as a journalist here in terms of being connected with the local institutions, including the American military. You established your own relationships here, and out of that came stories.

Tanabe: Yes, and that's the way it should be. We always look at relationships, and you try to offer a perspective to the local community that they may not have yet, but is very important. In any kind of a community where there is military, there's normally friction between the local community and the military. I think the military here does a very good job of trying to ease that tension, and I think we as journalists should be looking at those efforts that are being made instead of just harping on criticism. It's one thing to criticize; it's another to try to understand that criticism. I think journalists need to do a little bit more of that. Instead of just covering a protest march, the questions need to be asked, "Why are they there?" That's perhaps a more important emphasis that needs to be provided. It's a little bit harder to get to as journalists. We have to be very careful about balancing the sides of an argument. But, shoot, why do we go to school and learn about professional ethics and things like that? It's so we can apply it, not to shrink away from covering a story that might be a little too hot or might be a little too difficult. That's what we're there for.

Moorhus: You went to China in 1981.

Tanabe: Yes, and that one occurred because, again, Hawaii does have a fairly significant Chinese base. And for the first time, Pan American inaugurated direct flights from Honolulu into Beijing, and so they were going to have this inaugural flight, and I said, "I want to go." [Laughter.] I raised my hand up first. So they said, "Okay." Well, there were four people on that flight. It was a 747.

Moorhus: Four people, total?

Tanabe: Total! [Laughter.] Obviously, there wasn't a great demand to go to Beijing, for a number of reasons, one being that the infrastructure was not developed yet to accommodate foreign guests. We went in as journalists. And again, I tried to look for stories before I went, so I had studied a lot. I found out that the beginnings of television were there in China, and so I planned a couple of things. When I got there, I made contact with a Chinese television agency and others to find out how they did news, what the people in China read and felt and things like that.

When I went, I knew that I was taking a big risk here, because you're supposed to have a working visa as a journalist. We didn't have enough time, so I said we were tourists.

Page 49

I said, "I won't sue you. Here, I'll write something down."

So we went out there. I was able to talk to a number of students, who shared with me, because they spoke English, what they thought about the United States and what they wanted to do. Most of them learned their English by listening to Voice of America. Their English was very good, very, very good, and they were anxious to try out their English on me. They said, "It's so neat to meet Americans. We really want to meet more Americans, because it sounds like they have a fascinating culture. And yes, there are differences between our governments, but that's government. We as people are very anxious."

Again, you could feel this vitality of the country. Even just driving around Beijing, which at that time was frightening because there were very few cars and five million bicycles, and the driver of the cab drives with one hand on the horn and the other on the accelerator. And forget about stoplights. He doesn't care whether it's red or green. He must have been colorblind. You could just feel the vitality of the country.

Of course, I also went to a playground to talk to people with children to see what they were doing with this "one child" rule and get a little sense of their philosophy of child-raising. They're very loving parents, very loving parents.

I remember going to a bookstore that sold newspapers, and they only had a few newspapers. I said, "Where is everything?"

He said, "We only have one newspaper, and it's the propaganda newspaper."

I said, "Oh, is that how you describe your paper?"

He said, "Oh, yeah. The government puts things in there for us to read." So they are well aware of these kinds of things.

I said, "Can I see your comic section?"

And so they showed me their Sunday comics, or something equivalent to Sunday comics. It has satire poking fun at government—the high prices, the long queue they have to stand in for everything. And I said, "This is great! There is freedom of expression in China, and they do it in their own way."

So these are the kinds of stories that I brought back for the people of Hawaii, because we have a lot of relatives there. A large percentage of the people here in Hawaii trace their roots to China, and we have business interests there. And so therefore it's very important for our viewers to understand the changes that are going on, very subtle, but very human changes for us to see.

Moorhus: Do you think that trip was easier for you as a minority, or as a non-white, I should say?

Tanabe: Yes. Oh, yes. And also coming from Hawaii.

Moorhus: Rather than the mainland.

Tanabe: Rather than the mainland, because somehow Hawaii, there's a different word for Hawaii, and I can't remember exactly what the Chinese word is anymore, but it's called

Page 51

Tanabe: I made a point to try to watch the commercials. You know, commercials really say a lot about what kind of products are available, consumerism, whether it's active or not, how they sell. So I was looking at these, and I managed to bring some of the commercials home.

What you do is, as a journalist, you can't make academic analysis of certain things, but you can be observers, very good observers, and you can interview people about how they feel, and that's what you put together. I didn't do anything on government pronouncements. Anybody can get government pronouncements, but not everyone can get consumer reaction, people reaction, a sense of that, and that's what I did.

Moorhus: How long were you there?

Tanabe: I was there a week. I think I was four or five days in Beijing and another three days in Shanghai. Now, Shanghai was a totally different place from Beijing. Beijing is the capital and the seat of government, and so there's a different feel. Shanghai is sort of like a commercial center, a very, very entrepreneurial spirit everywhere you go. I went into a number of stores and talked to shopkeepers there. A lot more excitement in that city, a lot more trade, more people who seem to be dressed differently. In Beijing, everybody looked the same. In Shanghai, there was more color. I mean, those are different things that we as Westerners and as journalists can pick up immediately. More newspapers in Shanghai and, of course, a history of having more contacts with Westerners. So it was quite interesting.

Moorhus: What kind of a reaction did this series get from both your news director and the populace that saw it?

Tanabe: It was, again, very similar to the Vietnamese refugees one. We were among the first to go to China, a news crew from Hawaii, and come back with those types of reports. I think I had more reaction from people who watched us all the time and appreciate those kinds of opportunities. I also worked very closely with people here who had close contacts in China and were able to help me make those contacts; for instance, the U.S.-China Friendship Association.

And so within small groups of viewers, I think we had a very high standing, and what it does is it reinforces their perception of what the television station does and what its responsibility is, because television stations operate with FCC licenses. In return for using public airways, you're supposed to provide a community service. You're supposed to provide information that is useful for a community to improve its quality of life, among other things, and that's what we were doing. I take these responsibilities very, very seriously, and it makes it more exciting to be able to reach out and do these kinds of things.

Moorhus: You said when you did the story on Guam that you were the number-three station. Your ratings hadn't improved. Had they improved by '81?

Tanabe: Yes, they had considerably. There were a number of other reasons for it that I should let you know about. We were acquired by the parent company that owned Des Moines Register, which is a very, very well-known newspaper and known for its high standard of journalism. They acquired KHON, and one of the first things they did was put up a new tower for a transmitter so that more people could get our signal, number one. Number two, they started to pump more money into the news operation, so it wasn't always a shoestring budget. There was a decent budget to do more stories, and we weren't restricted. We didn't have a film quota, for instance. You go out and you do your story and you do it the best you can. And so there was

Page 53

Tanabe: First of all, my husband and I waited eight years before we had a child. I was thirty at the time he was born. And the reason we waited so long is because I wanted to make sure I established myself as a journalist and as a professional, because I did not intend to be a nonworking individual. I felt that I worked hard to get where I was and I intended to continue, and Roy supported me totally in that.

However, I've always loved children and wanted my own, and so we decided it was time. Of course, it took a while. When you're older, it takes a while longer to eventually have a child, but I managed it. And the station was quite supportive. I continued to work until the day before I gave birth, and that was because I was in fairly good condition. I didn't blossom as much as other people do. I did put on enough weight so that people knew I was pregnant and were constantly asking about it, but I managed to waddle around and do my thing.

I was very fortunate in that my morning sickness and my pregnancy was not bad at all. I was constantly happy, and it's because I'd waited so long and I knew this was the right thing to do. My husband supported it. The people at the office were supportive. I was just totally happy for the whole nine months—never lost my temper, never growled at anyone. It was just a wonderful time for me.

Moorhus: You were still anchoring during this period?

Tanabe: Yes, and I went to Lamaze class in between newscasts. [Laughter.]

Moorhus: And when was Nicolas born?

Tanabe: June seventh. I worked June sixth, got off work and went home about eleven, and then about four I started to get these sharp pains. But it was just back pains, and the doctor said, "You better go in, Barbara, but it might be a while." The whole labor was seventeen hours, but the first fourteen was just kind of little pains. I mean, all women are different, right? So I walked around, and it was only the last three when it got uncomfortable. But even then, it wasn't that bad. And the transition period, which is supposed to be the toughest part, that lasted all of two minutes for me.

The doctor, I remember, came and looked at me and said, "Ah, Barbara, it's going to be a while. I'm going to go and have dinner."

I said, "Okay, Doctor. See you later."

Well, thirty minutes later, I got rushed into delivery. The doctor didn't make it, so the intern delivered the baby. The doctor comes panting in, and he said, "Hi, Barbara."

I said, "Doctor, you're too late. He's here." [Laughter.]

So it was just a very happy, very good experience for me all around. And then I was off work for four weeks, and I went back in a month.

Moorhus: What did you do about caring for the baby?

Tanabe: Nicolas became the responsibility of my husband. [Laughter.] And thank goodness he had gone through three babies before, so he knew what to do. You know, it's kind of neat to see this bonding between a father and a son. With his first family, he was always too busy and wasn't

Page 55

Tanabe: Oh, the week in China, I really missed Nicolas.

Moorhus: He must have been about two at that point.

Tanabe: Yes, he was a year and a half. It was funny, because I took a picture of him and I shared it with my interpreter, and he almost cried, because he missed his baby, too. [Laughter.] It helped to have somebody who was understanding and to have the picture. So when I went home, it was just neat because he was just all excited that Mom was back.

You know, when you have a baby, it changes your perspective, because I was so intense on career that you forget, you know, career isn't everything. When you come home and you see this little child who doesn't care what you are, what kind of a day you've had, but he's going to love you all the same, you start to look at the world a little differently. I think I was probably a little bit mellower in my own way, in the way I approached work. Things weren't these gigantic problems anymore. They were manageable. I think it did me well to become a parent at the age that I became one.

Moorhus: You said that that gave you a different perspective when the ownership of the station changed and then you found it advisable or necessary to change your role.

Tanabe: Yes. I think if I didn't have the family, didn't have my baby, I would have been crushed to have to change so much. Every change in a career is threatening unless it's upward and more responsibility and more visibility and things. But I think it caused me to reflect a little bit, and I said, "Well, it's not important for me to be on the air all the time. I mean, I could do certain things. I could work around it." So it wasn't as critical for me.

Moorhus: So you did perceive that going off the air full time was not a step forward?

Tanabe: Oh, definitely. It definitely was not. But it wasn't the end of the world.

Moorhus: Did you ever think at that point about leaving Hawaii or that job and going somewhere else?

Tanabe: Oh, probably so, but not real seriously. I was doing well at the station. I know the ratings were going up, I know that my recognition factor was quite high, and I was very comfortable in knowing that I did a good job. So in many ways, the forces that would cause one to leave were not as strong for me.

However, I think that you just start to think about the life that you have chosen and some of the problems. In television news—this was after the movie "Network"* had come out, and there were all kinds of criticism about the values that television news perpetuates. You begin to wonder about it yourself, too, and figure out what your role is in this whole industry. I was looking at an industry in which people were judged not on their understanding and role as journalists, but on the way they looked and the way audiences perceived them. Those are external factors that most people can't control. I can't control how people are going to look at me and first impressions or judgments they would make. I can control my role as a journalist and the work

______________________ * "Network" - Sidney Lumet film starring Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, William Holden, and Robert Duvall (1976).

Page 57

Tanabe: And graduate school. It was tough. I'm not one to get Bs and be satisfied with it, and I was getting Bs in accounting. I remember sitting in class not knowing what the professor was saying, and I've never been in a situation like that. So I had to study doubly hard. I took very meticulous notes, but anytime I didn't understand it, I would underline it and I'd follow up with the professor. These professors—I'm sure I got my money's worth out of them. I'd go visit them on weekends or on off days and I'd say, "Look, Reggie, this is what you talked about in class and this is what I don't understand," and I would start out with like two pages of questions on his course. He would answer them, and it would take two hours for him to review this with me. I'd do that every single weekend.

The last time that I talked to him, my notes were down to two paragraphs instead of two pages, and I got an A out of that course. But that's just to tell you how hard I had to apply myself in areas that I really didn't have a comfort level. But I was able to finish with honors. After I finished, I did a number of business stories, and people were very comfortable having me do these. When I went to interview business executives in town, they were very comfortable, because they knew I understood and spoke their language and I would ask certain questions that were not off the wall, but were thought out. I had reviewed their annual reports and knew what their latest earnings statement said. I had done all of that, and so I had very, very good contacts within the business sector.

I graduated in '83. It was a two-year program. I continued with the TV station, and they kept saying, "Are you going to leave us?"

I said, "I did this so I could improve the kinds of stories that I do with the station." And I really did not want to leave, although I had questions about the way the company was managed. Eventually, I hoped to be able to move into management and help out with some of the things as far as evaluating their people and structuring it in a way that would be more responsive to encourage better reporting.

Moorhus: I think right in here is where the [Ron] Rewald story fits in, because that was 1983. Now, start at the beginning and then describe the story and all of the consequences.

Tanabe: The Rewald story was interesting, because now that I was the business reporter, I'd get all these kinds of things crossing my desk. There was this study that had been done by this company headed by Mr. Rewald in which they analyzed the flight of capital from Hong Kong into Hawaii. Since Hong Kong was to revert in '97 to China, there was a lot of capital coming out of Hong Kong and being invested in Hawaii.

I read this study, and I thought it was very poorly done. There was no primary research. The analysis was very poor. The conclusions reached were really questionable. I said, "People paid money for this? This is ridiculous." So I thought I'd better follow up.

Moorhus: Who paid the money to have the study done?

Tanabe: I have no idea, but whoever did pay for it did not get his money's worth, was my feeling. I heard somebody on radio trying to promote this, and I said, "This is really weird. Here is a company that has an unusual name."

Moorhus: What was the name of the company?

Page 59

Tanabe: Yes. "He apparently was writing some names down. He had your name written down, and, as he was taken away by ambulance, the security guards told me that he was saying, 'Barbara Tanabe ruined my life.'"

I said, "Where is he, George?"

He said, "Queens Hospital."

I called just to verify. I said, "Did you receive a patient by the name of Ron Rewald, and is it a suicide attempt?" and they verified it.

So I wrote a quick story for Saturday's show, saying that the head of this investment company had attempted suicide following reports of— [Pause.]

Moorhus: An investigation.

Tanabe: And that's all it was. And I was just shaking like a leaf, because at this time I didn't know what was wrong. I did know that somebody tried to commit suicide because of a story that I had written, and now you're just praying that everything is accurate, that you've done everything, that you've followed through. And from that day on, for the next four months I didn't take a single day off. I was consumed by this story.

The way it unfolded was that not only was the state investigating, but there were others that had questioned it all along but didn't know how to approach this company. The courts found it was a pyramid. It was a scam. He would take money from investors and then use that money for himself. He had this huge home, sent his kids to school in a chauffeured limousine. It was awful. And the people he scammed included well-known people, as well as widows who gave their life's fortune to Rewald to invest and with promises of heavy returns.

Moorhus: These were local Hawaiians?

Tanabe: These were local Hawaiians. He bilked people out of hundreds of millions of dollars. I can't remember what the amount is anymore. But one thing led to another, and then all of a sudden, we were the ones that broke the story. We were several days ahead of anyone else. I met a friend of mine who worked for the [Honolulu] Star Bulletin, who said, "Barbara, I've been working on this case for months, and I couldn't do any story until I had the hook. You guys blew it because you got the hook, so you got the scoop." But they were right behind me as far as following up on certain leads. The company was forced into bankruptcy, the depositors filed suit. They were all trying to get information. Everybody in town was on this story. It was on the front page for weeks and weeks and weeks, and I was always named in it because of the suicide.

Moorhus: Because he had used your name.

Tanabe: And he had used my name. Anyway, it was a two-person effort. I was the reporter that did the initial interview, and there was another fellow at the news station, Richard Borreca, who worked with me, and between the two of us, we tagged teamed.

We were very careful in the way we handled information. We called our attorneys immediately to make sure that they had our records. We did nothing illegal. We were not wiretapping anyone. We weren't going in there misrepresenting ourselves at all. We were doing everything by the book. But we didn't know what kinds of accusations were going to be coming

Page 61

Moorhus: And you kind of backed or fell into something that was huge.

Tanabe: That's right. Huge. Huge, that's what it was.

Moorhus: That's amazing.

Tanabe: It is.

Moorhus: But it obviously became very personal. He attacked you very personally.

Tanabe: Oh, yes, very personally. Then it causes you to question what you have done, and I did. I looked very closely at everything that I had done, and I said, "But I didn't do anything wrong. Everything was right, and I'm going to continue this." So I didn't give up. I was a little bulldog as far as digging into the story, until the FBI took over and the courts took over and it became a legal issue.

Even the FBI called me on occasion and wanted to know what I knew, and I said, "Look, I'm not your investigator. I'll give you information that's a matter of public record and that you yourself can find out, phone numbers of some of his contacts in Minnesota and things like that. But everything else, you guys can do yourself." I wasn't going to be helping them out. But I was very courteous about everything, and they understood I'm a professional journalist, I'm not a researcher for them.

Moorhus: And the station supported you throughout this?

Tanabe: Yes, they did. They did. They were very good about that. I remember the story broke in August. I didn't take any time off during that Christmas holiday. It was Easter before I finally got a day off, because I worked Saturday and Sunday, my normal anchor days, and then during the week every single day I was on the Rewald case. It's a good thing I have stamina.

Moorhus: Stamina and a supportive husband.

Tanabe: Yes. That's very major. That was very major.

Moorhus: Did this reporting coverage win you awards?

Tanabe: No.

Moorhus: Nothing?

Tanabe: No. In all the years that I was a journalist, I never submitted any of my stories for awards. The Emmy that came out of Seattle was because the station submitted it. I didn't even know I was nominated until we won it. But KHON wasn't into submitting anything at the time, during the time I was there. Later on, they started to submit documentaries and things. But, no.

This may sound a little self-serving, but I really wasn't a reporter to get awards. You're just a reporter to do what you feel is a good job. I didn't need awards to reinforce that. I knew that what I was doing was okay, and so it wasn't that important for me.

Moorhus: But the station could see that it certainly had done them well.

Page 63

credibility with both. I got names of people, set up interviews, and then I went over there to do a story.

I remember the first day, I got a phone call from the news director saying, "Okay, Barbara, so who's going to win, Marcos or Aquino?"

I said, "It's going to be Aquino," and he nearly dropped the phone.

He said, "Wait a minute. Everyone knows it's going to be Marcos."

I said, "No, it's not," because I had seen the Marcos campaign, I had seen the Aquino campaign, and there was a difference in the commitment and the intensity of the people at these rallies. The Aquino people were really committed. You could see it in their eyes. There was a sense of mission. They were dead serious. The Marcos campaign had many freeloaders. They were there milling around. They weren't really interested in what was being discussed. They were there to get food, money. It was very obvious.

I was a foreign reporter. And there was intimidation of the foreign journalists everywhere we went. I'm not used to this at all. You'd walk into your hotel and you'd have to go with your arms up because there were armed guards and they'd frisk you. At the hallways on every floor, there was an armed guard with bullets and a machine gun. All over you'd see evidence of—

[End Tape 1, Side B; Begin Tape 2, Side A]

Moorhus: You were talking about the Aquino campaign.

Tanabe: Yes, and how I was convinced that she was going to win if we went by the kinds of commitment given [to the campaign]. But it was also, you must understand, the Philippines are very violent, where life is really not valued as much as we ourselves would.

Before I went, obviously I was going to cover the Marcos-Aquino campaign, but it was also necessary to cover some of the conditions of the country itself, how the people felt, how they were doing, what some of those with interests from Hawaii were—for instance, the Del Monte operation, which is substantial, what were they doing, and there were lots of things that I did. I was there for over a week and traveled throughout. I followed Ferdinand Marcos when he gave a very big rally in a little province called Pangasinan, which was north of Manila, where many people from Hawaii came. I also went to Negros, where there was major insurgency problems and there were alleged violations of human rights because insurgents were beaten and things like that. I went to the Bacolod jail and interviewed those insurgents. I also went to Cebu, where Mrs. [Imelda] Marcos held a rally, to cover that rally and also visit with the cardinal there, who was against Marcos, and he explained to us why. I went down to the southernmost island, Mindanao, where there was tremendous upheaval with the insurgency. And Del Monte had a major operation, so we flew down there in a private airplane. As we were guarded by bodyguards, we did a number of stories and toured their plantations.

Moorhus: Bodyguards provided by Del Monte?

Tanabe: Oh, yes, provided by Del Monte. During the whole time I was there, I was really on edge. In fact, before I went I got extra life insurance—isn't that awful—because I was so worried. But I felt it was an important story to do. And I never told the photographer this. Norris was my photographer.

Page 65

and so full of life, and the country is rich in natural resources. The soil is fertile. They have copper, they have tin, they have wonderful growing seasons. And yet it's not working because of a government that's either corrupt or inefficient, and they're unable to use foreign aid well. It's just a sad case.

But I have a lot of hope for the Philippines, because, as a group, they're very literate. They are English-speaking, so to attract foreign investment, they can provide the language comfort level. It's like they've been orphans for a long time. They've never had a mother and father who has been willing to take care of them, and they've been whipped around by first the Spanish who colonized them and then the Americans after the Spanish-American War, and the Japanese who came in with the occupation in World War II. They've been victimized, and perhaps their pride as a nation had been wounded. What I saw most in Aquino was a hope that she would restore the national pride and give them back what had been lost over many, many years. It's unfortunate that she wasn't able to fulfill that mandate. But unless journalists travel to these places and write about them and send back pictures and things, it's not a message that gets out very well.

I remember I was talking to some officials in the Aquino government, and they told me, "If it weren't for you foreign journalists, we would be nowhere, because you're the ones that made people aware of what we're trying to do and also make the other Filipino people aware of it," because the media was so controlled by whoever is in power that the stories that are written are totally inaccurate. But for anybody in Mindanao or Ilocano or wherever, if they have access to foreign newspapers, they can see what's going on, because foreign journalists are the ones that came and broke the story. It gives you hope as a journalist that you go beyond national borders, that your concerns are very wide, and there's a common denominator in what you're trying to do among all journalists. And I was very proud that we could be a part of that.

Norris bought me this teeshirt that was being sold in Manila, it said, "I'm another meddling foreign journalist." [Laughter.] I still have that teeshirt. But thank God for meddling foreign journalists to a certain extent.

Moorhus: So you did that story as you had done others, in terms of going over there, filming a lot of things, and then coming back and creating a series of stories that you broadcast over here.

Tanabe: Yes.

Moorhus: What kind of reaction did you get from the community over here?

Tanabe: It was extremely interesting. I knew that this was Ilocano country rather than Visayan. The Visayans tend to be much more anti-Marcos. The Ilocanos here predominate, and there were angry words from the Ilocanos, who felt that I had treated President Marcos unfairly. But my feeling was that I didn't treat President Marcos unfairly. I went there and I did stories on the conditions of the economy. The consul general called me and said, "But, Barbara, you focused on the negatives too much."

I said, "But you know, Raul, it's true. These things are happening and have been happening for generations, and the government has done nothing to help with these types of situations. Look at the country today. It's bankrupt. What happened to the $26 million in foreign aid? Where did it go? I'm sorry, I don't agree with your assessment that this is an unfair series of stories."

We did try to do an interview with Ferdinand Marcos, and he was too busy with other matters. But when I was in Cebu and we took pictures of Imelda Marcos, she drew thousands of

Page 67

went down to the Basilica and banged on the door. Somebody answered, and I said, "Is the cardinal here? I would like to speak to him, please. I'm from Hawaii."

They said, "Oh, yes, he's in the kitchen having breakfast."

So we sat down and had breakfast with the cardinal and we did an interview. It was that kind of a situation, where you have to say, "Okay, I'm going to do it," and just go. You assume, well, the worst they can say to you is no. So that's what we did.

Moorhus: You just made reference to the fact that you were at this point shooting in video rather than in film.

Tanabe: Yes. By this time, it was video, thank goodness.

Moorhus: Did that make a lot of difference in your ability to produce?

Tanabe: Yes. We produced out in the field, and we would satellite back the video footage. We used the NBC satellite, and we'd get certain times. I would satellite the footage back to Hawaii, and then I would do a live insert into the news. The timing difference was just right. It was broad daylight, and we stood on the roof of the Manila Hotel and did the live report for the audience back home. It was really neat.

Moorhus: It sounds really neat.

Tanabe: Yes. It just makes you work like the dickens for ten, twelve hours a day. I remember, you're so much at the whim of your contacts. We were in Cebu, which is about 800 miles south of Manila, several hours by plane, and at midnight I got a call from the NBC bureau guy, saying, "You better get back here real fast because the Marcos people just called and the president will meet with you at 9 a.m."

I said, "Nine a.m.? That's only nine hours. I don't even have a flight out of here."

He said, "Well, try to make it back by nine, okay, and just go directly to the palace."

I find out the first flight leaves at 5 a.m., and by this time I'm frantic trying to figure out things. So we pack and get down there about three o'clock to get on this flight. Of course, I haven't slept all night now. And they said, "Sorry, all the flights are booked. Here's your standby tickets. You're 85 and 86."

Well, there's only fifty seats on the flight. I said, "Well, isn't there an air force plane we could take? I mean, after all, this is for the president." [Laughter.]

He said, "I'm sorry, we don't have an air force flight station down here."

I was pretty frantic, but I was very polite, and I wasn't going to give this guy a bribe. So I said, "We're doing all we can. We're from Hawaii. We're trying to do a story. We were in Cebu to do this and that. I'll just stand by and wait, but I'd really appreciate it if you could get us on this flight, because it's very important for us to be there at nine o'clock."

He said, "All right. Just stand over there."

Page 69

And then after that story, then I joined Communications Pacific. It was not Hill & Knowlton at the time. It was Communications Pacific. We were acquired by Hill & Knowlton a year later. So that was really the last big thing that I did as a journalist.

Moorhus: Before we get you out of KHON, however, I want you to talk about the "Song of the Imin."*

Tanabe: That was in '85, right. I did that before I went to Manila. That was the one-hundredth-year anniversary of the first contract laborers that came from Japan, and it was a big deal.

Moorhus: This was a documentary?

Tanabe: It was a documentary. I decided to go back and follow the footsteps of the first group, the first boatload of people that came from Hiroshima. What I did was, going through old records and things, I managed to find the exact place where a lot of these people came from. It was a small town outside of Hiroshima called Jigozen. Today it's part of Hiroshima City. It's a small village that was incorporated into Hiroshima. But I was able to, by digging, find descendants of some of these people and do a series of interviews to get a better sense of what it was like, what caused them come out, and what they were looking for.

Then I went back to Hiroshima and worked with some of the Hiroshima City people who helped us out. I found the grave sites of some of them and old, old people who remembered things. It was kind of funny, because every time we went through Jigozen, a small little village with tiny streets, and I'd go to the market here and there and I'd tell them I'm from Hawaii. Everybody had a relative here and they all knew about Hawaii, so they were more than happy to speak to us. We found a little sign that said there's going to be a village celebration. It's the Tondo celebration, which is not done in many cities of Japan anymore. It's an old tradition that's dying out. That's when the whole village gets together and they have a huge bonfire to burn all the decorations for the new year. It's supposed to signify the messages going up to the divine being, who will hear them for the rest of eternity. It was a neat ceremony. We went and we were treated by one of the villagers as one of their own and got to eat their traditional soup and the rice balls and things like that. It was really like going back to an old era, and it was wonderful.

What we did was, we re-created things and we put together dialogues. It was a different type of a documentary. What I was trying to do was involve more of the current generation of people and see if they would put in the voices of their ancestors so that I could get more community involvement. I worked with a group that did a lot of plays, live performances, Japanese studio type, to see if we could get more involvement. Some worked, some didn't. And so that's the documentary that was produced.

Moorhus: One of the credits is with the University of Hawaii Oral History Project, which I found quite fascinating. It seems to be oral history through it, but I gather that some of it is not the speakers, but you used actors.

Tanabe: Yes. I used actors to say the words, but those transcripts are actual descriptions. They are actual things that occurred. But in order to bring it to life, instead of a reporter just reading, I wanted to get actual people. So that's why I tried to use actors in it to make it more of a sense of

______________________ * "Song of the Imin" - produced by KHON, Channel 2 News (1985) in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Japanese immigration to the Hawaiian islands. Imin means immigrants.

Page 71

Tanabe: It is a recent movement within the Hawaiian groups, and I think it's very healthy. We encourage our clients to help their employees address this issue and to support those who are raising this issue and creating forums for dialogue, because it's very important that the Hawaiians be able to freely describe what they believe was an injustice and what they would like to see as restitution so that all of us can participate in creating some kind of a sovereign entity for the Hawaiians themselves. It's not right that they were the ones that gave Hawaii the meaning of Hawaii and really built it and then not be a part of its future. That's not right.

Moorhus: Tell me how you got from KHON to what was then Communications Pacific and is now Hill & Knowlton.

Tanabe: It's Hill & Knowlton, Hawaii now.

I think in the late eighties there were a number of things occurring, among which were an influx of Japanese investments and Japanese capital, and I think Hawaii was seen as more than just a tourist spot, but also a place where there were opportunities for businesses, whether it's to make investments or participate in economic growth or for a new market for products or for Hawaiian products to be marketed and sold abroad. I was looking at Hawaii as more than just an island and just a state, and because of my background and my facility with the Japanese language, I felt that I could do a lot to help the Japanese companies that were coming into Hawaii and being somewhat criticized for their business practices and their lack of acceptance of certain forms of communication.

Very early on, I believe it was about '85, '86, Clif Kagawa and Rick Zwern, who were heads of this company, Communications Pacific, indicated an interest in having me join. I thought about it, and I wasn't ready at the time because I had too many commitments with various projects at the station. The Imin documentary was one. The other one was the Marcos campaign. But I always thought about it, and I had already thought in my mind that maybe it would be time for me to move out of journalism, not necessarily because I don't like it or I don't love it or I'm not motivated by what I was doing, but because it was time to be more of a participant in resolving community problems or community issues. It's one thing to make sure people talk about it; it's another to make sure that you go the next step.

That's the big thing about being an active member of the community, that you participate. It was hard for me to do that as a journalist without coming under certain situations of conflict or questions about objectivity. Although I think in many instances I'd been an advocate for more dialogue on an issue, I felt I really needed to do more. I needed more depth. I needed to be able to use my mind a little bit more creatively, because I knew I could do certain things well, but now I wanted to look for solutions and help solve problems, and I couldn't do that as a journalist.

So that's when I started to talk to my husband. I never did anything without discussion with my husband, because he was the other half of my life. He was very hesitant about having me leave news, because it had been very good to us. I was very well known here in the community, I had a very good reputation, and going into business is something different. And so we thought about it. I don't make snap judgments. So we thought about it for three years, is what it amounts to, because we started thinking and talking about it in '85, and it was actually '87, for two years, before I finally did anything. But I decided, okay, it is time for me to make the move.

The station by this time was number one. I had done just about everything that I wanted to do. It was clear I probably wouldn't be moving into management at the television station, because they saw my strengths more in reporting and the visibility thing, and they already had people

Page 73

Tanabe: No, I came over here as senior vice president. I worked a lot with the Japanese businesses and helped counsel them on certain types of practices in which it is important for them to communicate not only with their employees, but communities.

Moorhus: Can you give me some examples of that?

Tanabe: For instance, when a Japanese investor purchased property that he wanted to develop into a golf course and there was community opposition, he couldn't understand it. He couldn't understand why people wouldn't support him, because it would beautify the area, it would increase property values. A typical Japanese says, "This is my land and I'm going to do it because it's legal, and I don't have to tell anybody about it, because this is going to be good for everyone." It's that kind of an attitude which to a lot of people is arrogance. To the Japanese, it's normal. So it was a matter of working with the Japanese investor to understand that in the United States government approval processes require community support. If the community does not understand what you are trying to do, they will not support it, and therefore the government will find it difficult to allow permits to go ahead with that plan. And so it requires more dialogue, more sharing of information, more discussion and meetings with the community, and it's that kind of thing that I work with the Japanese on.

When the Japanese investments started to dry up because they had their own problems back home, I did a lot of work with American companies going into Japan. I would work with them on Japanese business etiquette, where I would take them through a full-day program where I would work with them on Japanese traditions, historical behavior patterns, proper etiquette, right down to name cards, bowing, how to enter a room, how to seat yourself, how to address people, how to negotiate, the body language to look for, and then in dining, some of the protocol for dining. My mother was a very, very old-style Japanese and taught me a lot about manners, because she felt it was very important when you're dealing with people. Today, those types of manners are not normally taught to most Japanese. They have to go to manners school to learn the proper way to eat, the proper way to use chopsticks, which foods to start with, all of those kinds of things.

I worked with a lot of Americans, or I should say Westerners, who were going into Japan. I worked with them here. I trained Australians, New Zealanders, a lot of Chinese and Hong Kong Chinese who were unfamiliar with Japanese. So it's almost like coming full circle. I'm going back to my Japanese roots and trying to explain some of the Japanese traditions that cause people to think that the Japanese are not real open. Well, it looks that way. It's just that the behavior patterns are different, and it's easy to interpret that as a closed society when actually it's more open than people think.

Moorhus: So you're kind of a cultural broker and interpreter.

Tanabe: In many ways, yes, and that's a role that a lot of Japanese-Americans play, second-, third-, fourth-generation individuals such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Japanese culture, traditions, language, history. I work very closely with the Japanese foreign ministry, for instance. A couple of years ago when there was Japan-bashing at its height, you remember when Toshiba was accused of selling secrets to the Soviets and the Toshiba products were bashed on the Capitol steps by some congressmen, the foreign ministry called four public relations specialists from throughout the nation to go to Tokyo and give them a sense of what the problem was and how we as public relations specialists saw possible solutions. I was one of the four flown from Hawaii, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, and we had several days of discussion on that.

Page 75

better decisions in the long run. There's nothing wrong with public relations firms being involved. If they are involved, that's great." I never saw the story written. [Laughter.]

So I feel in many instances that we do work with reporters providing information, and there are other instances when we work with reporters to correct information. But there's nothing wrong with that. If there are inaccurate statements in print or in the public domain, they should be corrected, because it leads to bad decisions.

Moorhus: When did you become president here?

Tanabe: I became president last May and I became CEO in January, so this is my first full year, or it will be, as president and CEO of this operation.

Moorhus: How does your being a woman influence your management style?

Tanabe: That's a difficult question. I think my management style really is quite flexible, and it depends on the situation. When I'm dealing in a crisis situation, I'm not real participatory. I'll make decisions and will move very quickly, but those are decisions based on a lot of facts. It has to be, and it's based on my experience. But in normal instances, my style is to involve all the group managers and get their input and together try to reach a decision. Now, sometimes that's a little too slow for my liking, but I have found that that kind of decision-making is the one that helps people feel a part of the company. They have to have ownership of a decision or a policy. Otherwise, it's very difficult for them to feel affected or feel supportive.

So it is much more participatory, and I've heard feedback from our managers saying that it's a much more open system than they've been used to in the past. I also do share with them a lot more information as far as financial and policy issues than has been in the past. And again, this is because I feel that as managers they need to know how I think, and so I do get them more involved.

I have been criticized by some who say that, "Barbara, you seem to be too hands-on. You're always looking over my shoulder." Well, my feeling is that I'm the CEO and I'm responsible for everything that happens, so therefore I do get involved, and I will be hands-on until the managers have a better sense of the way I make decisions. When I meet with them, I always want to know what their recommendations are. I want to know what the facts are. I want to know what their recommendations are, and I want to know why they're recommending that. And then I either approve it or we have other discussions and look at other options, and then together we come up with a solution. But that's how I feel we need to operate in order to make sure that managers are trained properly, because management is not something you're born with. It's not a gift that you're born with. It's a skill that must be developed, and I find that every year I feel like I'm becoming a better manager, because it's experience. It also helps that I have a teenage son.

Moorhus: Which is a very humbling experience.

Tanabe: It's a very humbling experience. You learn to deal with various options. It may not be what you want most, but you don't have to make a perfect decision every time. It's a decision that should involve and provide as much benefit as possible to as many people as possible, and that's kind of where you have to go. Obviously, there are certain objectives that you try to reach, too, but those objectives have to be supported by as many people as possible. So I think my style tends to border on participatory and autocratic, depending on the issue.

Page 77

Tanabe: We are responsible for ourselves, not God. He gives us certain rules through various disciples and through various religious denominations, and we choose to follow those rules that will help us become stronger to deal with calamities, but it's not Him that we are to blame or to give credit, I don't think.

Moorhus: I don't know whether this is a difficult or a loaded question, but do you think of yourself as American, Japanese-American, Asian-American? Do those labels mean anything to you?

Tanabe: Well, sure, labels mean a lot, because that's what people use to judge you. So by definition, I can't ignore them. I may not like them, but I can't ignore them.

I've always thought of myself as an American, because technically that is my citizenship and so that is most accurate. The hyphenated descriptions are to explain situations, I think. I'm a Japanese-American because that explains my heritage. But, you know, those things change all the time. I probably thought of myself more as a Japanese-American as I was growing up and as I was going to school, but now I think of myself more as an Asian-American, and the reason I think that way is because it's too narrow to only identify myself with a small country in this world. We have attributes as Asians that are common among many countries. It's in the way that sometimes we think, it's in the values that we hold, it's in the cultural traditions that we share, so that when I went to China, when I went to the Philippines, and even when I met the Vietnamese, I felt a certain kinship. I would not have felt that way if I had been living only in Japan or living only in the United States. I feel a wider identification with people who look like me who are people of color.

I don't identify myself as closely with black Americans or Hispanic-Americans, because I haven't had that association with them. I haven't visited their countries or their roots. Perhaps I would. So right now, if I have to be labeled, Asian-American is probably a more accurate description of how I feel. Now, maybe twenty years down in the future I might find a different label that may fit how I feel. We're always growing and constantly changing, and the United States is constantly changing, so we shouldn't be stuck with a certain label. There's only one label that I'm comfortable with, and that's as an American, and then anything else is descriptive of that particular time or that particular situation. I refuse to be stuck with one label. If people think I'm Japanese-American, well, that's fine. Asian-American, that's fine, too. I know what I am.

Moorhus: So you see that the labels have evolved, and certainly as a reflection of you and how you think of yourself, the label has evolved, but you would rather not have a hyphenated label?

Tanabe: No. Americans are going to look like all colors, and we do right now. We do. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, who said an American had to look like a European? That may have been true 100 years ago, but it's not true today. I think it's great that we're all different. The only thing that really is not different is that we believe in the Constitution. We believe in certain principles that led to the founding of our country. That's what's important.

Now, sure, some of those are under attack because of the change in values people have, but I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job, considering what they were faced with, to come out with certain principles. The interpretation may differ now. You look at the way the Supreme Court and the courts of the land interpret the Constitution, and it's right that it changed now and then. The laws shouldn't be rigid for hundreds of years.

Moorhus: Does Nicolas know Japanese?

Page 79

So what, the white ball doesn't go everywhere you want it to go, but you're in a beautiful environment. And so I've learned to relax a little bit better.

Moorhus: That's good. And do you visit the mainland?

Tanabe: Very often, because my folks are in Seattle, so I go over there quite frequently. I go to New York and visit the head office when necessary. I enjoy going to the mainland. Every time I go it seems different, and I love it that it changes.

Moorhus: Thank you very much. Anything I didn't ask you that I should have?

Tanabe: No, other than I was really floored when the Washington Press Club Foundation called and asked about it, because it just never occurred to me that what I was doing was different. It was hard, but it was exciting and challenging, and I just thoroughly enjoyed what I was doing. To be able to participate in something like this is really a great honor. I'm just so glad it's being done. So I thank you for this opportunity.

Moorhus: Thank you.