Witnesses to the final panel. The final phase of today is to discuss with the Tech Companies and academic experts as well. If i could start off by asking members of the panel if they could give their view on an issue that is giving us cause for concern. Public uset consumption is increasingly moving out of a curated news space. The news bulletin, edited newspaper, or news website, and people are consuming news more and bite sized pieces that they discover and share via social media. Increasing numbers of people get their news by social media. Of the people in this country get their news from social media sites. What causes concern does that give you about news from your also from theand consumers point of feel whether they are getting a fair and balanced picture. If they are consuming a variety if theyre or exposed to the newsfeed on social media sites. , if you could give a perspective from your News Organization. Thisy wilson on one hand, is the reality of how people consume news and information. Wash 24 hours a day. All their waking hours. As a News Organization, we have to recognize that that is how people have become accustomed to consuming news. One of the things that is hard inside a News Organization is that people dont come to what we do with the same kind of intention that they did in the past. Howad naive notions as to completely they absorbed and read the material we wrote and how many articles they read. It may understand that be sufficient to read a sentence or two. Other times, people will go on their phone and read a two or 3000 word story. It is highly variable. We have declared that we have to remain a destination for our readers. Well we use these platforms as a way to expose people to the kind of journalism we do and attract newer audiences and so forth, we ultimately need to bring our most engaged readers ask to the times itself. Iter organizations find difficult to do that and consequently are much more dependent on how these platforms display their news and information. Become theffectively equivalent of the front page for most individuals. While News Organizations are still composing the individual stories, they are arranging and figuring out who sees what, in what order, and what time frame. Itthe earlier conversations, makes it very difficult to determine whether they are in the publishings ace or a purveyor of content that other people have produced. Clearly, through algorithms they are applying a level of judgment. Quite apart from the misinformation. , but thegets regulated right approach to that is, is typical in part because theres not a clear line between what constitutes news and other types of information. There is no particular, apart from libel and defamation laws, there is no regulation. Theres a spectrum of information going into the mix. It becomes difficult to separate out. In the quiet counsel of their offices they would be out of the News Businesses if they could be. You ask what scares them . In addition to regulation and possible antitrust action, it is also the prospect that what they have built is getting out of their control. If you look at how they score, google and facebook enjoy pretty good reputations. It is taking a hit. There are all sorts of unintended consequences they are having difficulty getting their hands around. The new yorks times is a major global news brand. Making the transition away from a printed newspaper to a digital is this. Looking at the breadth of those you represent, will we see a consolidation continue at pace . Where they have limited local news . I think there are several challenges David ChavernDavid Chavern i think there are several challenges. Where people attach their attention is limited. That being said, the real fear, we talk about fake news as a aboutal story, we talk various issues on a national scale. The future of fake news will be a local phenomenon. Withill have people curiosity and interest in their community and there will be insufficient reliable sources locally. Crazyill fill that is bloggers and conspiracy theorists who have ideas of what is happening in the local counsel ors school board. Or school board. When looking to the future, one of the challenges is as we move into digital consumption of news to a greater degree, do the local News Organizations have the resources to build and optimize and connect with their audiences digitally . As compared to the New York Times or other national. Layers will local News Organizations have that same capacity . Theres a lot of concern about that. On the local news fund, these people are attached to their communities. That should be an advantage. It is. The question for the future will be capacity. Will they be able to make the investments to make this digital jump . How will they have this relationship with the other distributors with their distributors . In the past, you literally handed a printed news product to your audience. It was the ultimate direct relationship. This is now disintermediated. There is somebody, notably google and facebook, who stand between there readers. In the u. S. , the News Business has not been regulated. Its that First Amendment think we have. But google and facebook are our regulators. There are rules about regulation and distribution. Continuingwill be a challenge for local News Organizations to figure out how to work their way through this disintermediated delivery, for want of a better term. They had the capacity to make this technological jump. From acollins forecasting point of view, there are two things that follow up on this. In america this last week, firstly do you feel that the key issue will be one of trust . With things like augmented reality giving people the opportunity and Technical Capability to create fake stories and fake films. There is an opportunity for traditional broadcasters to beat the more trusted gatekeepers. Fakedwill be a lot more images as well. Forecastel that the needs to do more to reach their audiences . Facebook news channel with 2 million viewers. Have they gotten lucky as an early adopter or is that model difficult to replicate . I think between news and television, we have in our miss click rates all through the cbs. Com all day and all night. Hasy journalistic outlet tried to merge video, audio, and publishing together. To do it credibly. To some of the earlier questions i have been in this business since 1984. When i worked in the community newspaper, it was the Community Talking to itself. Its values, its perspective. There was one choice in that community. That was the newspaper. Then the local television stations. The choices now are all over the place. We exist in a world where are eating junk food. They dont think its junk food. They think it is spinach. They are making a conscious decision to say no, what i was being fed maybe from cbs or nbc, or the New York Times was the junk food and what i am finding alternatively is my good food. Mr. Acknowledge that that separation from our journalistic organizations that was probably built on a foundation of having has gone away. We have two compete over credibility and trust. That is in hourbyhour and day by day pursuit. News or nothing at cbs nbc or abc about someone who mashes together video in a dishonest way, except broadcast that which is legitimate. But there is a slippery slope here, but theres something that media organizations have to take account for. When there is a hurricane or a tornado or a snowstorm, we will take content off of facebook and twitter the people have shot themselves and put it on the news. Because we were not there. They were. We get it for free. We may put eight teeny microscopic line in there that credits the source, but we are taking content and turning it into journalism at no cost. We dont have to pay for a crew come of dont pay for an assignment editor or any of the loaded cost we used to pay for to create our own broadcast product. We are part of this dynamic. I think it behooves everyone in the industry to understand and own up to some of that. That we are compromised commercially. There are certain ways we profit or gain from all this content that we transmute into journalism. I have a slogan i use all the time. Content is content and journalism is journalism. They are not interchangeable. The other is, as far as news consumers whenever i give speeches on this i was leave them with this thought. From the time he woke up until the time you went to sleep everything you read and consumed leaves you pleased and happy and verified, you are doing it wrong. [laughter] i would echo that. I think the greatest single concern i would have with all the big pluses identified with the increase in the availability of news and the sources of news and the friday of news is that it has enabled people to create their own media bubble. Their only reading material consistent with their belief. Newsencourages fake because within that sphere, anything consistent where we that terribles or thing. It all gets thrown in there. My concern is that you dont get readthe docket of provocative things because you disagree with them. To otherto be exposed things other than what you and all your friends think. I seews and politics and this in the u. K. , even from the u. S. It is almost become like supporting a team. You did a much are in one camp or the other. Of notople are accused being a true supporter. Youre not being devoted enough because they can see some aspect of the other persons argument. How is it got to this . How did we get to the situation where you have to sign up for 25 Different Things because you probably think either this or that . Most normal human beings dont do that. I think it is really unhealthy if we create a News Consumption environment where everything that comes in is consistent with with got to get in or get out. Ithink of all of the concerns may have come that is one of the primary ones. You may appoint at the start of this that is very important. Faking stuff to look like really good stuff gets easier all the time. The technology is much cheaper, the programming is much cheaper and it would be very easy for someone with rudimentary skills to provide something which your average layperson wont know the difference. If i could interject one thought on this, its kind of a gloomy topic. With the proximity of people and their own cell phones. It has fundamentally changed. Ews organizations if there was a Police Involved iooting, and i wasnt there, was dependent upon the orientation to the facts, circumstances, timing and evidence provided by the source. Most responsible, but most potentially liable, the local police department. Withresence of citizens their own independent means by which to video what happened has transformed not only that conversation but the relationship between what happened and what others who are not defensive, possibly, about what happened say happened. It is fundamentally altered in a positive way, not just the communitys understanding of what happened, but journalists who are trying to figure out thats one area that i would like interject has changed and changed for the better. Anotherdox theres side to that too. The pressure being placed on News Organizations to get news out fast. Were seeing examples in our country where people got it wrong. Its not something you recognize. Absolutely. T i can give you an example. After the Boston Marathon incident there was a tremendous amount of information by citizens. On that fateful friday night or there was a successful effort to find and apprehend the suspect. Things were appearing on social media based on what somebody heard on a police scanner. We were very cautious at cbs. A lot of other News Organizations were cautious, but it was out there. When it is out there, then there andhis deeply philosophical also highly pressurized conversation. What do we do with that . Are we close to verifying it . What is our standard of verifying it . I kept counseling my own network internally, i have listened to police scanners. I did it for six years. Whatever you hear from one cop on the beat is relevant, but it is also a very thin understanding of what is going on in the totality. We have to be careful. These circumstances create enormous pressure. Much greater pressure tonight experienced in my broadcasting career. Part of this continuum between what is believable and what is hyper pressurized is the ability to say i am prepared as a News Organization to be second and write. Im never prepared to be first and wrong. Damian collins thank you. Julie elliott. Julie elliott thank you. I am particularly concerned with the referendum. The organized and not organized. The not organized is very much what you were talking about, where people reinforce their own beliefs and they retweet or repost and they reinforce, but if we can go to the organized first, you open and journalism a long time. What do you think has really changed in the last couple of years . Does it feel worse . Is it that we simply know that the interference is there and was probably always there . What do you think . Let me just start with the reaction. One of the good things is that you can consume a lot. When i was growing up you have the paper on the driveway and halfhour news and that was the news. That was all your window into the world. I have access to so much. But listen, well have crazy relatives that over the course of dinner have weird conspiracy theories and lives and men didnt go to the moon, and whatever the theory was. You knew that information was different than what landed on the driveway. It came from a different place one official and one not professional. One of the digital challenges is that it is all put into a blender and fed to you in similar ways. It puts a tremendous onus on the reader to differentiate. I think there are insufficient indicators to leaders about to readers about what is good stuff. I think it provides a tremendous opportunity for people who want to manipulate the public. To use these digital pipes to feed out garbage news. Can powerful type of they news is not aliens have come down, it is something that is somewhat off. The people wish were true but feeds their biases. They can feed a bunch of information that, unless you are a careful reader you dont understand that is coming from a bad place. I think it has opened up an opportunity for people to manipulate the public much more than in the past. There are things we can do about that i getting back to indicating more what is Good Journalism and what isnt. But i will pause and let other folks respond. From my perspective the biggest is targeting. I think that is even more problematic than the spectrum of information that is out there and the sheer volume of information. We have quite a good understanding on the commercial side is to help powerful those tools are. We spend a lot of money on facebook. It is the most efficient way for us to acquire subscribers. It can be used in a variety of ways. Distinguishant to between what is showing up in peoples newsfeeds and in search. Is in thed, which control of these platforms as they break their algorithms and fine tune the difference between social connection and authority versus the ability of those who pay on those platforms to target particular audiences. There, as you get into conversations around potential solutions, i think starting at the level of transparency individuals having control over their own data, that is one important area. Without that, so long as these platforms are in complete theresy control the risk that regulation will have unintended consequences. Damian collins i think to your point, it has been a fascinating day listening to all the key issues youve got. I dont envy you. If i would respectfully suggest from where i sit, i think nothing is more fundamental than the sanctity of elections and the idea that elections could be interfered with by third parties. More than a dozen years at the bbc, i have quite a bit of experience with the u. K. Elections. People,tation of the and the u. S. That has enabled for all of its flaws, a fair template which all broadcasters and major news organizers need to subscribe to. The other is a technical thing. Because of the number of constituencies, there are a lot of small majorities in the u. K. [laughter] if you look at the number of constituencies and the u. K. , there are less than a thousand or 1500 votes. Those constituencies are enormously honorable. If people follow the election by social media, people who have a desire for an outcome decide to as you havearea, heard it is very easy to get geospecific information so you can make sure this story hits all of your users in a constituency. Story, an immigration everybody who might have an interest in immigration in that area gets hit with this wave of stories. There has to be some kind of defense to that. The Media Companies themselves are faced with an enormous challenge. , whatever theyes may be. They have big challenges here. Theyve grown quickly. I am so pathetic to that challenge. We know that they have great geotargeting technology. Some will be a question of employing people. If you hire some local journalists, and a lot of local journalists got laid off. If you hire them for an election to check this out. Is there something not right and we should be taking it down . It is almost worth making a priority of the election, certainly in the u. S. , the idea that russia interfered with the election is a profound issue. With all the other stuff and chatter that goes on, to keep coming back to the idea that everyone is concerned that may have happened. That is where i would start trying to get my arms around this. Up the rations. Two quick observations. Actors have long had motive to see if they could disturb or influence the american process. The means is different. I havens, and i believe a lot of conversations at the white house. Weve started having this conversation. We have given them the means by which to fulfill their motives. By being so archly partisan against one another, we have created in our dialogue in this opportunitych wider for fake news are propaganda or somethings some things that divide us more. Our own discourse has created an opening that did not exist i4. Before. Xist the way we speak about differences of opinion. We have to acknowledge the possibility that there will be behavioral adaptations to all the things were talking about. I use my three children as an example. 22, 21, and 17. All three have grown up in this telephone, digital world. They are already demonstrating signs of exhaustion, psychologically and otherwise. I believe that there is a real possibility that as those who grew up with this adept differently, they will begin to send signals to google, facebook and others about what they do believe is credible and not credible. The possibility of them changing , quite separate of any regulatory regime, gives me some sense of optimism that we are all collectively, especially the younger generation, i believe there is a reckoning coming. This is all your thirdparty verifiers that you trust. Beingrust reanalyzed and redirected in other ways. I am optimistic about that. Perhaps that is unfounded optimism, but i see it in my own children and behavior they express for themselves and behalf of their friends. Theyre looking at this world and Tech Companies and the whole the novelty has worn off. I believe there is a great possibility of adaptation at the consumer level. I think if we find anything in the last 10 to 15 years it is that things will not be the same. Julie elliott a number of you have mentioned Fact Checking. That is one of the things im concerned about. In this very fastpaced, 24 hour news thing, often on social media things are put out there that are true. It was mentioned this morning about the boston bombers that there was information out there that wasnt true. Weve had similar things in our country. One of the things that concerns traditional journalism, with less people working on newspapers, less people working in the big broadcasting companies, this urgency to get a story out there has they that will take something and think thats all we will get ahead of the game. What impact do think that is happening do you think that is having . To make sure things are correct before you put them out there. Tony maddox i can see this changing now. I worked at cnn for 20 years. If we were the first to break the news, we would get a print quick pr campaign. We dont do that anymore. Becauseeasons, one is stories dont break first on tv unless it is your own original investigation. In terms of breaking events, natural disasters, crimes, whatever it might be that breaks first. It will break by a twitter or data miner which is a news tip off service. Theres no Julie Elliott ive never even heard of it. Tony maddox thats the way it goes. Theyll be her next her. The idea of saying it first has gone away. You are seeing News Organizations in a traditional News Organization when you get something wrong, it is awful. People think, they got it wrong and fake news. When the mistake is made, it is terrible. Everybody feels dreadful about it. There are full investigations. There are built consequences. Sometimes people lose their jobs. Its a really bad thing to happen. Right deal do a lot, to avoid that. As more and more sources of instant use available, people evolve and what they look for from established brand. For all the frenzy around fake news, what is worth bearing in mind is that traditional News Organizations like the cnn have enjoyed improved fortunes. The amount of consumption is on the rise. It is significant that people together their own portfolio of news. They might see something in social media. Folks are quite savvy. Its different if i read on the New York Times or anderson cooper. The traditional media has a role, but that role is to be increasingly the source of trusted news. Thats inconsistent with trying to get everything out instantly or operating in and under resourced way. Theres no future in that. I think weve adapted in many cases. One of the convention suite use this where quick to tell people what we know and what we dont know. You cant go dark until you confirm everything. You to understand what is actually happening and what they should believe and shouldnt. We all adapted and understood. Television was much better than newspapers because they operated in the life environment for years. Theyve had to adjust for the changes in social media. But i think we have all learned pretty well how to act responsibly. It is tougher in organizations that are thinly resourced. A couple interesting trends. I think there is a view that the value of traffic. Theres been an idea of more traffic, better. That was based on Digital Advertising models. We will get more money from advertising. Google and facebook are now commanding the lion share of digital ad dollars. Your News Organizations thinking about their future in a subscription direct relationship with the reader is one of the enriching parts is hearing about longterm trust and not wanting to get things wrong. I do think the impetus to get things to grab traffic is dissipating. The unfortunate part is that google and facebook are getting all of the digital ad dollars. On the Fact Checking side, journalists are the fact checkers. Checking fact organizations that do good things, but at the end of the day, the best act checkers are paid devotional journalists. I still think there are insufficient indicators to when people are consuming news online as to what is coming from professional paid journalists and what is coming from something else. I certainly always encourage google and facebook in this regard. We need to get much better at giving people indicators of what is coming from somewhere else. To that point, in newsrooms five or six years ago there was not uncommon to have a large Flatscreen Television for quick rates of one story. Back in that time, not so long ago, but in terms of adaptation was a long time ago. Stories would be updated and those updates would carry corrections. Whilewas a kind of, for a , debasing in for melody between a correction and update. The phenomenon of having clicks theoretically translated to add dollars. As the industry has become more accustomed to consumer habits, it has learned it needs a relationship. Longer views. Not just clicks. Updates now are much more transparently disclosed as corrections if that is what they are. News organizations have become much more aggressive about distinguishing between the two. Much more transparent about that. In order to reestablish the idea of a relationship. It is not just sex anymore that dominate a successful story. You need a lot of credible stories. Is, in an oldfashioned sense, how you monetize your journalism. Finally, i just your last sentence talks about credible journalism will always outlast incredible politicians. ,ut we are dealing with here is we dont take it personally. That . Re your thoughts on Major Garrett that it has found credible. Valuable,ffirming or has found a marketplace. If found a Business Model that will pursue it. That is a reality. Take modeling professionally, but philosophically, the long view on that. That which is not only true today, but your tomorrow and a year from now will ever live in starker contract to that which is not. Those responsible for that which is true will gain steadily over time. That, int believe couldnt do it im doing. I certainly couldnt do it in the atmosphere during it now. Julie elliott thank you. Damian collins brendan ohara. Over the past weeks weve heard about the Financial Impact on Mainstream Media. Due to the sharp rise in social media, and please feel free to comment on that, i will ask for your thoughts and reflections on the effect, the longterm effect on the social and cultural statesing of the united on the loss of influence of the Mainstream Media and the public sphere. Do you have concerns . I think we should have profound concerns. Being, this has been disrupted for the past 20 to 22 years. In theriers to entry Publishing Business have fallen and advertisers can go direct to audience and not needing media as an intermediary. These are larger phenomenon that go beyond this current conversation. It is very hard to unwind that. It has led, and david is in a stronger position to talk about this, the emergence of news deserts. Where in tire communities are Public Institutions and courts that you could count on in the past. It is not clear as much there , the startups, have as yet found a sustainable model for that kind of journalism. We are finding models at a global scale and national scale. It is clear that those succeeding are succeeding on strength of trust of readers and viewers and listeners. And by the quality of what they produce. There are issues of scale and local communities that lead real questions to hell fundamental journalism will be funded. How you maintain an informed society. A couple comments. First of all, one of the central problems we are wrestling with here and certainly google and and facebook, news is a different kind of content. It is important. What i mean by that is, a disappointing Television Show or cat video is just that. It is disappointing. Disappointing, as in lowquality can destroys society at a broad scale and opportunity level. It is existential. When must have access to quality news. I dont think that is something that the tech giants understood when they got into this world. I think theyre trying to figure out. Were all wrestling with the fact that there is no such thing as a free News Business. We need quality news. When you look at the local level, take what i referred to before us the idea that we will move to a subscription model. We are out on the advertising side. We will go to subscription models, and there are fantastic examples of that including the john wright here and what New York Times has been able to do. Wonder at theo community level, what is the capacity of a community to pay subscriptions that will support real journalism in that community . If you dont have real journalism in that community, you quickly get to fake news world locally. I was on the city council in my little town of falls church, virginia for several years. We had a journalist who covered city council and he wasnt there. I assured you that there would have been a crazy blogger in the back room that insisted that the school board consisted of aliens and they would get that information out. There will be people feeding curiosity about the community. If its not actual professional reporters, it will be fake news which will have disastrous impacts on those communities. There is a great piece in the New York Times a few weeks ago about a fake news phenomenon in twin falls, idaho that was brutally destructive to the local canadian environment there. I dont think there is a known answer right now for local and community news. Were struggling to help find the answer. We will have to find it. News is important. If we lose it, we will lose quite a bit. Two examples from america, the texas tribune, which is a foundation of newspapers supported by a nonprofit asus. This is been in existence for a long time. Theres one cropped up in the last year and a half in las vegas, nevada. I was an employee may years ago. The Las Vegas Review journal. The nevadaentirely independent has built itself entirely on donations, nonprofit donations from the community and from the businesses within that community. It has no offices. It has no burning press. It has no delivery. It has your list and laptops and website. It is beginning to work. That is one possible model of philly in this gap. Model of filling in this gap. They now have one struggling newspaper. Has to comprehend is that it was as a Public Service. It has a public value. If the Public Values it, those esteemed citizens of said community have to figure out a way to support it. That is, there are small examples of that beginning to emerge in our country did give me some optimism. Brendan ohara one final question, and intentional consequence of this fake news phenomenon has been the loss of trust in any and sometimes all sources of news. That loss of a traditional keeper. That is one of the most worrying aspects that weve come across. Muir never trained in being able to combat the loss of all trust in the right of fake news. What are you doing or what are your organizations doing and how do you begin to rebuild that trust, which is diminishing by the day . I dont know that it is. Theres always a balancing act. Saying they dont have an impact and then the sky is falling. I think there has been a systematic, focused attempt to lee legitimized to delegitimize traditional media. The stories they are reporting and, therefore if you reduce the impact. There is a concerted, focused, ongoing attempt to do that. The way to respond to it is to double down on what it is that you are good at your you could make a very strong case that for the last year and half it has been somewhat of a golden era. The number of major stories broken from traditional news the New York Times, washington post, and organizations like my own. One story after another that have been fundamental to the American People and the American Government in a way that america works. Get into the to idea that somehow we have been delegitimized. As a company ourselves, having been consistently attacked, we do our own individual resorts. Individual research. Have to tell you, it has had to none. So, we would be foolish in the extreme not to recognize that these constant attacks do cut into the core of what we do. We cannot panic for that. We should change what were doing. We should double down and reinforce the values of what we do. The evidence is that is working for us. I would certainly agree with that. If you dig into the polling, there is no question that trust in media has been declining. If you begin to ask about the particular publications are people consuming and you get different signals. I saw study yesterday that indicated that they were saying an upswing in the trust of media and the decline in the trust of the platforms. A lot of it has driven circumstantially by what is going on. Down on doingd what we do best, which is the is digging which deep and being as thorough and comprehensive as we can. With added to the newsroom in washington and beyond. We are seeing results in terms of the number of people subscribing. Even, being able to sustain our print circulation. That there are two stories going on simultaneously, which is things we have been talking about. They do a road Peoples Trust in a righty of information sources. There is also an appetite for something they can latch onto, cubs or the noise and trust. Brendan ohara how much of that is a polarizing . Each person is running to his flank . Is that what youre seeing do you think . Theres certainly a fair amount of Political Polarization to be sure. I dont know that people are simply gravitating to their preferred political choice. I think it is complex. There are certainly, you can find cohorts of people who are there are also people reading more broadly and have an appetite to really understand issues across the board. It seems to me a tremendous opportunity. For less 20 years or so, this idea that there is something about the Mainstream Media gone unanswered, we have an out likely understanding. Your presence here is indicative of a global interest in what is around of principles credible journalism. I tell my colleagues all the time that this is an emotional time. It feels very heavy. This is the best opportunity with had in our careers to do everything that tony and kinsey have just talked about. To lay it out and show what it is every day. The audience has never been more interested in what it actually is that we do and how we go about doing it. There are market pressures, partisan pressures, but there are enormous opportunities to do this right and show the way. Brendan ohara thank you. Damian collins were about to hit our seventh hour. Lets be reasonably efficient in the rest of the time we have. Tried to be brief. Elections, was well made. In my constituency which is tonys birthplace, with my magnificent majority of 30, i am one of the 11 numbers of what i call the under 100 club. If you sway a few hundred votes, you change the government in the u. K. That is how tight it is. I just want to preface my question with i was an investigative journalist myself. Accurate, freer, responsible press is absolutely vital. The platforms or new Digital Media organizations are, for useful role. They wouldnt be popular for didnt. They wouldnt be as popular if they didnt. But theyre taking large chunks of your revenue. Influence. Row in as we heard today, they take very little responsibility for some of the sadder aspects and absolutely no liability. My question is, do you think that is right . Do think that is fair . Deepika fair competition . Do you think it is fair competition . David chavern first of all it is a reality. They give our news brands access to many people. They have built amazing technologies. People always say are they publishers . Are they Media Companies . I would apply any and all labels to them. I call them attention companies. They want to access as much of the publics attention as possible. They want more of it tomorrow than they had today. They do own responsibility for what they are using to get your attention. Whichant a world in google and facebook are editors and publishers and express editorial perspectives on their platforms . No. But i think they can do much better job of helping to separate helping their user to separate the wheat from the chaff. With indicators of credibility. More to helpuch resolve the fake news phenomenon. I think the difficulty is, as engineering and technology companies, they like engineering and technology solutions. This may be an area where they have to do something crazy like higher people. Hire people. Do they have responsibility to what their users are exposed to . When they are using their users, yes. Farrelly i would include apple and amazon in this as well. Kinsey wilson there are those that behave more like walled gardens. Theyre trying to keep their users in their environment. Others, like google and twitter redirect traffic back out. In the latter instance, the economics of media are tremendously complicated. Women opportunity to build our business if they are effectively acting as distribution platforms and common carriers and not simply a walled garden. The argument we have made to them and to facebook in articular is, either build set of apis and a system that allows us to manage our business on your platform, or pay us for our content. One or the other. Or treated asols a closed cable system. Progress on that front. But lumping it altogether is not helpful. Just a few thoughts, really. I agree they will have to hire some people. You cannot solve everything without rhythm. There is an argument that were maybe due for a shakeup. There has been much soulsearching inside the news. With the u. S. And you k, why did we miss tracks it . There are conversations taking place outside of traditional media. A lesson inhere is that. And then i think there is a general principle and i cannot really be too specific in this. But no matter what business you are in, it cannot be a principal that we do not care about the truth. Whatever it is that you do, the truth has got to be important and you cannot say, if it is a lie, we can live with it. Get not know how you around that, but that cannot be the basis of the business. Just a couple of really quick examples, or answers. I mentioned i was in the newspaper business early in my career. Back then, newspapers talked 11 profit each year because they sold classified advertising, it was an embedded part of the Business Model that never went away. People say, did the internet kill newspapering . Not the internet. Craigslist and ebay pruned american newspapering. Because it gave everyone, who used to be done to get ther local the paper, an alternative place to send that money. That to 35 out of every newspaper in america. Within the course of about two years. What i ask you, Business Model can sustain 30 to 40 loss in revenue in two years, find no means by which to replace it and maintain the same standards, size and scope . The answer is zero. The business reality, a competitive reality none of us can do anything abou t. Its real. That created smaller newsrooms, fewer ambitions, more openings. Because the conversation in the communities around the country was becoming less robust. And as was mentioned earlier, when theres no coverage of your local community, everything masquerades as a partisan issue at the national level. I guarantee you there is no public and there is no republican orientation as to whether or not a bond has been letting your community to fix the water pipes. But if there is no local journalist there to tell you about that, it feels like it. This loss of revenue, ambition and scope at the local level was filled in by some of the phenomenon we are talking about. Second point and made earlier about adaptation. Google and facebook and other Large Companies have for a long believe,ted a false, i a false impression about their relationship with their user. My children have already figured this out. The relationship is not about me, it is about you, what you learn about me and what you sell about me. The future for journalism is to say, i relationship with you is different. You suspect to us, we will tell you about your world. That is it. That is it. You subscribe to us, we will tell you about your world. Whether that is the Balloon Festival and the springtime with your local community, or about the civil war in syria that is in its seventh year. You subscribe to us and we will tell you about your world. That is it. You fort going to mine the rest of your life and tell you every thought you have ever had and give them to 17 other consumers. We will tell you about your world. And this and that we get to that place and the sooner we get to that relationship in the seductive world, the stronger we will be, the better off we will be and the more we will be able to push back against this other fakeness phenomenon. Fake news phenomenon. About whatm smiling you said, how can lives be the basis of a business . That is what we heard from twitter this morning. They are quite happy to have lies on the platform and have their business run on the basis of that. My question is, because you have indicated a couple of times to help users understand what comes from professionall journalism ad what hasnt. Im trying to be positive and look ahead to possible solutions. One thing that has been suggested to us this week. I understand you have an information consumer report. It is a bit like a wtich magazine in the u. K. , an independent Rating Agency. Do you think the idea of an independent Rating Agency for information and news outlets, so it would show facts against it. It would measure fax against fiction, report the honest opinion, have some ownership identity. The equivalent of a nutritional label on a packet of food. Do you think that is something that would work . Do you think it would influence the lives to change their behavior . Start withould something simpler and get to that. The simpler thing would be doing brand of suppression. , the brands that are attached to news stories get minimized. And frankly with the scraping, the brands get very confusing to users who are not working very hard at figuring things out. Both platforms could easily work on making brands more prominent and have more brand equity with the users. Then you get to, should there be a capacity to determine professional News Organizations and i think there should. Often described as impossible task. There is already line drawing in the journalism business. There are credentials to do some things and organizations that cannot get journalistic credentials to get other things. But you can have pretty basic and pretty encompassing standards that relate to for example, do you actually hire and pay journalists . What is your ability to respond and do you respond to comments and corrections . There are a number of Different Things they could be developed. Not be very difficult, particularly for companies with the resources of google and faith. To apply google and facebook to apply. Could be pretty encompassing. Frankly, just paying journalists is a big one. But without the element of independence, can we trust those platforms to do that, based on their behavior . There are many opinions on how this could there are other groups looking into quality. I think there are a lot of ways you could get to that. But that i would then give extra credit in the algorithm to folks who are professional journalistic organizations. That would not mean getting wood of the garbage or censoring, but it would give more opportunity for readers to get reliable journalism. Google is working with us and other News Organizations to attach signals that essentially could give us a sense of authority to a story as well as looking at the relevance of the actual information. And then they are willing to open sources and make it more widely available to other platforms, whether that works in a social environment, whether it is about the election between individuals and has less to do with servicing a particular piece of information is an open question. Thank you. Thank you, very much. Points, only short really. I am so heartened to hear that you think there is a future for journalism. I have to say on the converse, a reason it has gone downhill is because there is nothing advertising to put into the theers and advertising has all been drawn onto social media. 20 of worldwide advertising is now on social media. So, how are you going to tackle that . Just briefly, mr. Murdock. It will not it will not be alone. [laughter] what we have seen is the ability of the social Media Companies to provide advertisers with incredible detail to allow them to target, in a way which we have never seen before, it is a major game changer. Add meant to add to that. Advertisers want to advertise there because there are so many people looking at that. The only people looking at what we have heard are the sites which get the most hits, which tend to be, not always, but wghich tend to be the least reliable. The business is always changing. Fake of hitws can be calories. My company at the moment, time warner, which owns cnn, is in the process of trying to merge with at t. One of the primary reasons why the two Big Companies are trying to do that is because they are trying to combine the data the one has and the content the other has to put together a kind of offering, which is along the same lines as the social Media Companies. The highest levels of these Companies Realize they will have to provide some similar kind of metric. This is completely the opposite of the local television question. This is how Corporate America response to this major shift in the place of the Advertising Industry and how that will work out is that Massive Companies and merge and Work Together reinvent themselves to respond to that shift within the business. Bring a bigan to pompous answer, but that is where the answer starts. My suggestion, which we could put to the gentleman from the New York Times, is surely the answer, which you have alluded to, is all of the journalists link up with facebook and twitter and provide this high power journalistic content for them. On the advertising site there are efforts under a trade organization to put together some occult trustx, which aggregates quality publishers into an advertising exchange. Costhat commands a higher for thousands. And you typically get advertising and things like that. At the end of the day, it is about scale. Whether it is broadcast organizations competing with mobile carriers and so forth, or other News Organizations trying to pull together to create an ad market of their own. Perhaps, a partial answer. We dusted our earnings today and announced we just did our earnings today and announced we had 1 billion in cisco revenue. In subscription revenue. That is part of the solution as well, i think. There have got to be alternative sources of revenue as well. That is the relationship model i was talking about. The future of journalism. I would like to make two points, quickly. Yes, Digital Advertising would be another seven hours plus of hearings. If you think the News Business disrupted, you should talk to people on the buy side of advertising. The piece of where you can build optimism about news and journalism is the audience is bigger than ever. There are more people consuming more news than ever. Period. And they do it because they can. There is access to so much more. That is something to build around. And ultimately, there is a lot of work and thought being put into subscription models. That is a big part of why we have been asking google and facebook to facilitate the description through their platforms. Experimenting are with, but have not yet delivered on. That could go a long way by the way, of instead of getting in the way, it is aggregating this relationship with the reader and helping us solidify it. People do want news. They do value it. I think there are some positive things. To express a lot of concern about the future for local and community news. The relationship with the reader will be there. Is, i think,to pay going to be an open question for a while. Thank you very much. What you said determining the models of the businesses changing. This is a separate inquiry. It is certainly something that interested the committee. Forgive me. I am a working journalist and i have a deadline. Forgive me. Tournament strikes me is the monopoly to chase this, that we effectively have, with facebook having 60 present and google, having 60 of digital, and 20 of total global adspan. I think someone earlier on just mentioned briefly antitrust. Monopoly that this situation has been allowed to develop . I am going to pass on that. Theres a court case on it. Ok, thats fair. Its all about data. The question is if you are in a data business, does that lead to a potential natural monopoly . If you have a little more data than the other guy, does that give you huge advantages in attracting ad dollars . Is there a natural monopoly there . I think there are a lot of academics doing research on that. Theres a lot of analysis as to whether traditional views of antitrust, which are usually for the consumer benefit, is applicable in a datacentered market. I dont know where that will end up, ultimately. But it is true that when your advantage is data, if you have a little more than the other person, you have a lot more. That will always be true. There is something about the question of data. Without portability you tend to get in a situation of lockin. Where the biggest players cannot be dislodged and there is no room for competitors to get a foothold. If i cannot take my information and move it to a better service, and i have got to wait for my friends and everyone else to gradually adopt that service, the chances that it will take hold and present some sort of competition to the larger players is minimized. So, i dont. Aset quickly out of my depth to whether these things are better dealt with through , forrust or not differences in the european and american views of antitrust and so forth, but the data issue and not simply, their command of it, but who owns it and whether or not it is portable is at the heart of this. Just briefly. To an extent you have addressed this. Do you see that the overall desire for news and information has grown . And is there a level of optimism that the overall desire for quality journalism, as opposed to other forms of news, is growing . Demarcate any of that by demographics within society . Hase have a foundation that an data on the demographics of News Consumption what is clear is, you know there used to be do notabout people consume news anymore, young people do not consume news. You do not hear any of that because it is so patently ridiculous. Peoples focus on National News stories u. S. Presidency and other things. Recognitions a wide that people will always him in curious about what is happening in their world and communities. There is a lot of data, because so much news is available, it is consumed a lot. Now, it is consumed differently, for example of millennials, it is consumed to differently than we consumed it as young people. It might come in a facebook feed video beach selfie, cat and Syrian Civil War all within the news feed, the people of all ages consume news. That is a good thing and something you could potentially build a future on. This is not a business where we are lacking customers. This is a business in which how you made money from creating beenty journalism has incredibly disrupted and broken and we have got to rebuild from the ground up what the future looks like. I agree. If you are going to spend a life s, youvews busines got to be optimistic and their are a lot of grounds for of tourism. Theerms of people entering business, the quality of people who want to get jobs, we have the diversity of people who want to get into the News Business. There are encouraging trends. I also want to reemphasize, the of whats your brand can be, investing in quality journalism, thats resonated. Good businessa model as well. There are a lot of good things happening and i think News Consumption is higher than it has ever been. Ofting here, people think the New York Times as a newspaper and cnn as a 24 hour news station, but they are viewed as digital propositions behind me. The key thing is they are all being consumed and i think that is a reason for optimism. I would agree with that and briefly say because there is such a bleed between news and other forms of information, because the cat videos are thrown in with headlines and so factsbased of information that used to reside in newspapers are no longer there. There is an enormous obligation on us to explain what we do and help people understand the difference between how different types of information is gathered. We have been working hard to be much more transparent and give people a sense of how we go about our jobs and why it is important and not simply assume that is well understood. Great. Thank you very much. I think that completes our andtions this afternoon thank you very much for your evidence. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the british house of commons is back in session this week, so prime ministers questions will return on wednesday. It is live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan 2. Then it airs again sunday night at 9 00 on cspan. You can always listen on the free cspan radio app. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up monday morning, historian Douglas Brinkley will talk about president trumps influence on the presidency and Craig Shirley will look at the legacy of president reagan. You look at the reagan rising from 1976 to 1980. Watch washington journal. Join the discussion. Tomorrow, a preview of the new season of landmark cases, live from the National Constitution center. Joins two law professors to preview the 12 historic cases that will be featured. We get underway at 6 30 p. M. E astern on cspan. You can always watch online at www. Cspan. Org, then listen on the free cspan radio app. After that, watch as barack obama and Michelle Obama have their portraits unveiled at the National Portrait gallery in washington, where they also spoke, along with the artists. Artistsach of these had to walk into the oval office yikes. I almost want to start each conversation by apologizing for putting them through this process. Just to get this done, they had to come into the first office and get grilled by the president and the first lady. Im sorry. Im so sorry. [laughter] Michelle Obama it was not lost on us on how unnerving this experience was. In, i have two midwas intrigued before she came into the room. Seen her work and was blown away by the boldness of her colors and the unique nature of her subject matter. I was wondering, who was this woman. I am not somebody who is a great subject. I hate posing. I look at my watch. One of those pictures must have worked. Why is this taking so long . Torturous, trying to take a picture of me, much less paint a portrait. I will say that working with joy. Artist was sa great he and his team that made it easy. In the tradition of a lot of great artists, actually cared how i thought about it before doing exactly what he intended to do. [laughter] that evente rest of with barack obama and Michelle Obama tomorrow at 7 30 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. Created as aan was Public Service by americas cabletelevision companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events in washington dc and around the country. Cspan is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. Next, fcc commissioner speaks at the annual state of the net conference about Identity Theft and net [applause] com. Rosenworcel good afternoon. Thank you to everyone for being here today. You got me somewhere between senator and the Deputy Attorney general. So its a treat to be back at the state of the net conference and a special thank you to the Internet Education Foundation for having me and thank you for the good work you do to foster conversation about internet policy