Action in 2020. I am rebecca, director of George Washington university is a different data, democracy and politics. Im pleased to welcome you to our conference. Today, we have the opportunity too speak to a number of renowned experts, academics, journals, medical and Public Health professionals, as well as grass roots activists about how the coronavirus pandemic has reshaped digital communication, campaigning and activism and lead up to one of the most consequential elections in this nations history. We will discuss the challenges of Fact Checking political claims in real time. The targeting and impacts of disinformation on communities of color. Potential postelection violence being organized online, and much, much more. However, before we begin our first panel, i would like to invite you to watch a few remarks from George Washington universitys president. Sue met good morning. I am president of the George Washington university. I am pleased to welcome you to todays events. Posted by gws institute for data, democracy and politics. During these past several months, the pandemic and president ial election cycle have put digital politics front and center. Our university has been leading the research and conversations that shed light on the development that are defining our lives and changing the course of history. Our institute for data, democracy, and politics is dedicated to combating the harms that arise from online spaces in these critical moments. Help the public, journalists and policymakers understand digital medias influence on Public Discourse while developing sound solutions. Perhaps, now more than ever, this work is vital. Im a short time since its creation, the institute has worked on investigative pieces with journalists, posted events with policymakers and academic experts, and become a force for factbased information in a sea of misinformation. Most recently, our research tapped into twitter and facebook data too investigate the many ways that social media platforms circulate harmful, misleading and divisive content. At a time when media manipulation, fake accounts, and malicious Online Activity or undermining democratic ideals and targeting vulnerable and marginalized members of society. Events like todays can help us understand the rise and role of online disinformation. They also help us consider the impact of Digital Trends on local politics. And examine how discourse about covid19 itself is reshaping american politics as we approach a u. S. President ial election that is only weeks away. At gw we are committed to a teaching and Research Mission that creates new knowledge and has a positive impact on the world. To the efforts of our institute for data democracy and politics, i am confident this impact now includes making us all better informed and better engaged digital citizens. Thank you for joining us today, this important event. And now, i would like to turn the program over to my colleague at the institute for data, democracy and politics. Thank you president and thank you to all who are joining us today as we gather virtually obviously missed a pandemic confronting the despair as the that have made worse challenge by the age of reckoning we know so well. Now just days from an election that so divided this country it is fair to say that our very survival of so many levels depends on factbased information yet this type of information is under siege as never before where disinformation, conspiracy theories, threats, deliberate misstatements of fact. And it comes to us from foreign adversaries as well as National Leaders in person, on the air, across social media. Now those who seek to inform the public honestly, accurately, must compete in this brutal information ecosystem so how do they confront it . What should they cover . What should they ignore . What should they fact check and how . What works, what gets through . These questions and more will be for this incredible panel of journalists and scholars who are very much on the front lines. But first, this is what it has become. What i would love to have as a crawler the bottom of the screen a fact checker placement if its one 100 in up getting pinocchios, right . It took 821 days too get to 10000 of our gifted 20000 racemics claims from true all the way to pants on fire. We are the people who are annoyingly precise in analyzing your every word respect to not even try to say ever or always because it usually never is ever always. Is an avalanche of lies and President Trump right we have a deficit with china to me did before. That was the case two years ago but not now. Im okay with electric cars to eyeball for electric carts ive given big incentives for electric cars brace mickeys actually tried too eliminate programs to encourage the manufacture of respect what said about President Trump is not quite that cut and dried racemic most president s have one. [inaudible] President Trump does not just have one theres more than 400 claims he has repeated more than three times since taking office. Some of those hes made literally hundreds of time. Nearly one in six Small Businesses have closed this year. Mrs. Acrobat voters overall needs low context racemic rate that partially truly rate that is inconclusively right that as full spirits direct actually stick to the Fact Checking. Interfax racemic who are the Fact Checkers customer we dont know. And is the editorinchief of political fact. High angie. Angie, i think you are muted. If you unmute yourself. There we go. High angie good to see you. Ethan is assistant professor George Washington University School of Public Affairs research for the institute for data democracy and politics. Thanks for joining us ethan. Student great to be here. An awardwinning National Correspondent for npr one of the most respected voices and political journalism welcome. Lets go to the questions now. Angie would like to start with you. You are editorinchief of political effect. you know this well you do incredibly well question we are Fact Checking everyday in addition to Fact Checking the normal the under policy disputes that would happen, were also Fact Checking misinformation about a pandemic that is spread online and then we had the unusual situation where the president is sometimes the source of misinformation with his tweets or what he says so lots of Fact Checking going on and facts are really in dispute in ways that i have not seen them disputed in the past. The video which we were going to see was going to be in intercut of many of the things that are out there, several of them being said by the president of the United States and a flood of Fact Checking, a question, what are you focused on in your Fact Checking and especially with the covid in politics, what are the examples of the things that you have been Fact Checking. Some of the examples that we have seen from President Trump, he says were the best country at fighting covid and he will fight the statistics, we are not we are in the middle, were not the worst but were not the best either. He suggested a vaccine is intimate when they are clearly still going through testing and then we see things not repeated by trump but online and a lot of misinformation about health like mask wearing can be harmful, that is not true, no evidence to suggest that, in some things we see young people are immune, they are not immune, being older is definitely more of a risk factor but young people get sick and sometimes die as well then we seen a plethora of fake tears like bleach or vitamin c or warm water that are not true but they seem to gain traction and travel throughout the internet. Ive also heard from doctors directly about weird stuff that is out there, segments i had one dr. Tell me he had a patient come in who told him that he saw online africanamericans cannot get covid which of course is not hardly not true but country to the painful fact that African Americans and people of color are getting sick and dying at disproportionate numbers. Are you Fact Checking that stuff that jumps out there. Yes, we are basically Fact Checking everything that we can fact check. What happens this is a new disease so the best science and evidence has been building up since we started and there are questions about who is the most affected and then we run into the things that we boys dealt with, we have Racial Disparities in income disparities, people are not always getting the best care and then we try to figure out what is going on with the disease, they have a lot of strange symptoms that can be different for every person, we notice people have very Different Health outcomes and people get over quickly and some people die and then you have the range of outcomes in between it does seem to be a disease impacting in the community under stress so the africanamerican community, the latino community, its a new disease in its coming into an American Society that already has a lot of healthcare disparities. Your research focuses on disinformation and public understanding and your next book false alarm about political this truths in the trump era, we will cut the change on all of that, as andy was pointing out, we have the covid misinformation, at the same time we have a president of the United States who himself is actively spreading him a question for you that you contributed to debunking handbook which describes as a quick guide to responding for misinformation and let me weigh in first on the work that andy is doing and in environments such as this. There is no doubt there were living in a world with worrisome amount of misinformation, groups like andes groups and particular are really effective of what they do, Fact Checking as were talking about reducing the least of misinformation can be really effective so to go onto the website in a given day you will see exactly what andy is talking about and their Fact Checking everything in viral facebook post, Fact Checking statements by donald trump, in my research is shown in the research that is done with my collaborators, Fact Checking makes people more accurate, people who are fact check come to believe the truth, that is the good news, the worrisome news in the flipside, maybe not enough people are consuming fact checks, sometimes the people who spread the misinformation and believe most of the misinformation do not go want to Fact Checking sites on their own accord, i think that is the challenge, when people see fact checks, they become more accurate, with journalist and media leaders and political leaders need to do is focus on getting the fact checks to the people who need them. Can you backup so people are really clear about this, in your research when you say Fact Checking works, what if you found is the effect on people, is that correct their impression, change their opinion, alter their behavior. Sure, many different possible effects of Fact Checking, the first effect in the first order effect has to do whether that people believe the fact check or do they believe them as truth, earlier research was skeptical that people believe the fact check, working with the team for years, what ive shown people believe the fact check more than they believe the misstatement which is to say the Fact Checking pushes people factual beliefs in the accurate direction, that is true on average, not true for everybody, usually when i tell people this, they say i know somebody who does not respond to fact check, that may be true, on average people respond to fact check by becoming more factually accurate. That is exciting news, as from the other possible affective Fact Checking, political beliefs, voting preferences, the evidence for that is seems that fact checks do not change peoples political attitude, it does seem to change the factual veracity of peoples beliefs. Let me go over tomorrow, i think youve covered eight president ial elections now, Something Like that. You are muted, can you unmute yourself. It feels like 800. Im sure. Your white house correspondent, you cover the white house from the belly of the beast, what we are seeing is like nothing weve experienced before, how would you say that the misinformation around this pandemic was provided in a very unstable floor of Everything Else we are experiencing right now is overlap in the politics affect the way that you are covering politics this election cycle. The pandemic is the number one issue, its been completely politicized into say it overlaps is not even strong enough, the pandemic in the election are one thing, the pandemic is a metaphor, masks are metaphor, donald trump, his experience with getting covid is to show how strong he is and how he feels 20 years younger, or as good as he did 20 years ago, thats a piece of misinformation. That covid makes you feel bett better, to me it is completely emerged. Covering the pandemic of what politicians say about the pandemic is one and the same, its insufferable from covering the election campaign. How will you decide how to balance your coverage and frame the coverage, the president of the United States is something that is incorrect or disputed by experts and fact check to say it is wrong, how do you decide how to cover that. It depends, theres a lot of different ways i used to make a joke in 2016 when the president did something and said something that was outrageous or broken norm like i want to punch that caster in the face, what was i supposed to do go interview somebody who is pro punching professors in this phase and someone who is antipunching professors in the face, now we try to get the fact check as close to the statement as this information as possible, when you see it the Fact Checking and that something that you can do on tv but in radio we do a truth sandwich, i dont know the truth sandwich originally but you dont what the president Say Something and then say the experts say this is not true, you see the president falsely claims without evidence expects x, you have them say that because hes the president of the United States and then you come out of it and you explain why that is not accurate, that is one way we do, the other thing, this is something that i wanted to ask ethan, misinformation and disinformation, even talked about how people who are fact check become more accurate, that sounds like they made a mistake or they gave misinformation, there is a whole universe of people including the president of the United States in many parts of the republican universe that do not respond to be in fact check because they do not care because of the disinformation and intentional falsehood for a political purpose. , when the president gives a shout out and praises them for being against pedophilia, that is not a mistake that he made that can be fact check, but in terms of what we do, editors at ntr had a challenge every single day the New York Post story comes out we can talk about that later about hunter biden, do we cover the fact that the New York Post says this in the sun Hunter Bidens computer into say here is a story that some experts say is a classic taste of russian disinformation. What did you do. Many News Organizations had a new beat in the last ten or 15 years and we actually have a reporter covering the media so what we did, the media reporter covered as a media story, the New York Post did this, why, and talked about all the ways that it might be inaccurate, it might be a Russian Disinformation Campaign et cetera, we did not cover it, even if twitter tries to block us and they have a website that is available, that is how he came at it. This is one of the core dilemmas, we talk about this but i want to come to ethan, one of the core dilemmas do you cover something and if you cover something because it is out there, you elevated, even mara through a couple of questions your way, let me respond to the information. I think you put out one of the most interesting intentions in the study of Fact Checking misinformation which is possibly different reactions to Fact Checking when we look at Fact Checking applied to republican or political elites and everyday nonpolitical elites partisan. One way to think about this, donald trump himself may respond to a fact check by rejecting the fact check, we see that in real time and where reporter will fact check donald trump and resist the fact check in any because of fact check, on the other hand average republicans when exposed to fact check call donald trump misinformation to become more accurate. In Political Science we might attribute this to the Different Levels of commitment that the elite politicians have compared to everyday partisans. Elite politicians may be more invested, natively in misinformation and disinformation where as compared to everyday people who say fine, i understand thats false information, set it aside and move on with your life, i think thats a really interesting dynamic. Angie can i come over to you, i want to be about this which is something that has been raised a lot in the media has been criticized for example on climate change. But there are many people who are keeping score, you might call false equivalency on who you are Fact Checking and whether the Fact Checking itself is biased or fair, just to be direct you come under a lot of criticism for people on the right who say you are biased, how do you address that in a time when you have a president who seems to be particularly fastened with the facts. I get a lot of emails from readers who are fans of President Trump that say you are biased because you fact check the recent debate and maybe you found 12 things wrong that President Trump said but you only found four things wrong that joe biden said and that means you are biased, i have a couple of different responses to that, the first thing i say, tell me what we missed from joe biden and we will take a look, we are nonpartisan Fact Checkers, we do have a commitment to Fact Checking both parties, all candidates, that is the first first thing, the second thing trumps said 12 things and biden said four things, i cannot leave out eight things to give the illusion of balance, that is an ethical problem, speaking as a journalist, our highest ethical commitment is to the truth and if it appears biased to some members of the audience, that kinda just the way it goes, we cannot sacrifice her commitment to accuracy and completeness of our report to make things look other than they are, we do have a published methodology of Fact Checking where we talk about how we go through sources and evaluate claims, we are human beings, there is subjectivity to it but i think overall we get very close to an objective method of looking at the candidates in Fact Checking what they say and at the end of the day, our commitment to the craft of journalism has to be higher than trying to make things look different than they are. I want to come back to you quickly and ask you about the debunking handbook and ask you directly how that can be applied in the real world of journalism where you work. Let me have you have a quick word about what the debunking is. The debunking handbook came out last week, its updated version of the debunking handbook that came out in 2011, the original debunking handbook that came out nine years ago spoke about backfire and that was an idea that you are fact check, you would respond to the fact check by backfiring in becoming more convinced in the initial misperception of the statement subsequent work that ive been a part of has cast doubt on the frequency, we found is pretty rare and we summarize the literature on debunking in the Scientific Consensus and i think there is 22 professors from all disciplines talking about how to best debunk, there is a headline recommendation from the handbook debunk often in debunk aggressively, dont be shy. Let me ask you about this, in the debunking handbook under the headline header, misinformation can be sticky, it says the following, Fact Checking can reduce peoples beliefs and false information, however, misinformation continues to influence peoples thinking even after they receive and accept a correction, this is known as the continued influence affect. I would like you to explain that because then i want to apply it to have reporter czars both supposed to address this. Even if a fact check is effective that reducing this perception, people might still be affected by the initial misinformation, for example if donald trump issues misinformation attacking his political opponent in the issue of fact check, people who read the fact check will probably move away from the misinformation to become more accurate and responsive in the direction of greater accuracy but they still might hold a lower opinion of the politician who donald trump used to smear this disinformation, that is a concerning problem. We have long operated and we have covered the white house together, we know how all president s and Communications Team throw information out there because they want us to echo that, they want to put that out there, in an environment such as this, the challenge was that it continued influence affect, do you change the way you put the information out there, how do you address that reality, you are muted. Is. This is a really, really tough problem. Because we are so tribal because of the tribal lysing effects of social media, whatever we do to discuss a piece of misinformation or disinformati disinformation, quit putting that piece of disinformation out there and by definition were given it more life or airtime, npr is a mainstream News Organization, we try to surround this piece of misinformation or disinformation which is much context and Fact Checking as we can but what we found, maybe you could talk about this but there are plenty of trump voters who say i know he is a liar, i dont care i am still for him, thats a different question, they think they know what reality is but they do not care but the ability of political actors to create an alternative set of realities, an alternative reality, dont forget we start with the Trump Administration alternative fac facts, we thought there was only one set of facts and we thought the democracy depended on a sheer set of facts and then you work your way to the opposite opinion, we are not there now. All that i think we could do in the Mainstream Media is to provide context to explain what is happening and why a person is purveying this in the organization is doing that, that is all that we can do, i think the notion that we can somehow not disseminated as if we can control it, the internet is uncontrollable, social media is uncontrollable, this is hard and the thing that makes us even harder and i know it goes without saying in 2016 most of the disinformation and misinformation was coming from the russians or outside of america, sometimes in broken english. But now its generated in this country by the president of the United States often and also by political actors, there is a piece about fake local news outlets that say on their homepage that we provide you with unbiased fact checked information in their offerings for republicans pr groups, this is what im saying, this is really hard i dont have a great answer except to do the factbased analytical. I will say if you fact check the facts and legitimate, the Network President i will be writing something about this, this person suggested that there could be a scenario for which this News Organization would not report what the president said or drop it down into the story to diminish it if for example he claimed on election day or Election Night that he was winning when the evidence suggested otherwise, we knew there was a lot of balance that had not been counted, can you imagine as a reporter deliberately ignoring. That example is not disinformation, that is president of the United States making a political act that is hugely consequential that will be pushed back against by actors including the secretary of state all over the country who have not finished counting their ballots, that is a little different, i cannot imagine if on Election Night, let me be clear, its not the choice is we will cover the president declaring victory, those are not the two choices to ignore that he is declared victory and if its legitimate, we will have to put that in a humongous sandwich, the president of the United States to legitimize the election he wants accounting to stop, heres the rules in the states and save that they will keep counting, we have to cover that, i do think that the president of the United States is being covered differently, sometimes the networks including fox, that is a little bit different but there are times that News Organizations have decided to downplay what the president is doing because they dont consider it to be news value, you would know this better than anyone, thats the top of the newscast something that is the most important. As you all know its a most sensational. Not npr. Fair enough. This conversation reminds me that misinformation is a societywide problem in the media cannot solve it, i think sometimes we get into the mindset and sometimes her audience put the sons that if the media acted differently everything would be fine, that is not true, this misinformation is also coming from the political process, it is coming from political leaders, voters, thats a very hard thing to deal with, the political leaders are extremely responsive to the public, i see that over and over and for example why dont the republican senators hold President Trump more accountable for things they are afraid of voters in republican primary voters, when we talk about the problem of misinformation, we have to look at all sectors of society including the text platforms we have not talked about them yet, they were very significant role to play, we all have to do our part ever going to get two or more factbased public discussion. In this context i want to ask you something that ethan raised earlier, if you see the fact checks, how are you working to get to new audience, different audience, people who might not typically and repeatedly consume fact checks. Its a whole new world independent News Organization we are pushing it out there more channels than ever before, we email, we put them on twitter, facebook, partnerships, we also partner with facebook, this is a very Interesting Program where we fact check content on facebook and feed it back into facebook, facebook enabled this program, people who are not looking for Fact Checking come across something that is false and they get a note that says this content has been fact checked by thirdparty Fact Checkers and those people are coming to us, we are also putting our fact check information on the platforms like whatsapp, we have an alliance on whatsapp called fact check and were doing things on tiktok, we are trying to reach people wherever they are, one of the downsides is the audience is highly fragmented, you cannot do one thing and expect everybody will want to see it anymore, its been a long time. Let me ask you this question have you had a conversation about a partnership with fox news . We have not although i would welcome that conversation if fox news wanted to come to the tab table, it is a tough one, the fox news example is very challenging, they are an independent News Organization and theyre doing their own work, i think its fairly well documented and you can speak to that its a source of misinformation, how do you deal with that. Thank you very much, you took the question out of my mind, even to you what about the role of fox and the other super partisan Media Outlets and what about angies efforts for a wider broader audience, what is the research indicate to the success of that. I think it is nothing short of for roadwork, everyone involved in Fact Checking is doing everything they can to make sure more factually informed based world which is such a challenge in part because of Media Outlets that are interested in disseminating this information, it reminds me of the earlier question about her point of observation that certain people will say i support donald trump, i dont care i will not support him any less, there are two studies that i did that might shed some light, the first study was conducted live during president ial debates in 2016, we fact check in real time trumps misstatement and what we found people who were Trump Supporters would respond to fact checks by becoming more accurate but at the same time there would be no effects on their political views, Trump Supporters who see a fact check of donald trump become no less supporters because of the fact check they did become more accurate, i thought from my perspective fox news, donald trump is a conservative ecosystem should not fear fact checks out all it turns out that peoples political views are pretty deep in it for interesting and a more important public we can fact check people without being worried that were dramatically shaping the ideological views of those who consume them. Go ahead. I just want to jump in on that, sometimes people have a tendency to see the Fact Checking through partisan lens like its a conservative who was wrong if we had a jeb bush presidency, theres no doubt it wouldve been very conservative but factbased, it was as different sort of person and had much more research but himself, this stuff, factually has no Political Party that is attached to in the transit we see now can change. If we are going to be dedicated to factually, we need to be dedicated to nonpartisanship. Can i ask a question. You are saying Fact Checking makes a difference and not on their partisan leanings but they accept the fact, have you done any studies or any work on the education curriculum that would include Media Literacy, one thing that i voice felt is the reason why people have such a hard time telling the difference between fact and falsehood because they are not trained to consume news in a critical manner and we dont have Civics Education adult in the United States anymore or hardly at all but if that was a k12 curriculum that included writers see in financial literacy, would that make a different, if you had a more informed sophisticated news consumer and you have to train people to be that, would that make a difference. I have not personally done this research, it was a great paper that came out earlier this year which looked at the effects of literacy campaigns and did find a positive effect that News Literacy messages and distributed and made people more capable of distinguishing fake news from real news, i think theres a lot to be said for these campaigns and i hope the platforms get behind News Literacy and with 100 i hope News Literacy and Civics Education come to play a strong role in k12 education. Ive seen an explosion in Media Literacy efforts over the past few years, political faxes part of the institute which attempted media wise which started off doing Media Literacy for teens and has spread to Media Literacy for seniors, i think that is absolutely needed, that the new frontier, i think were still trying to figure that out, i think the signs are positive but more study is needed, what you said about civics not being taught in schools, we desperately need more civics taught in schools. The educational trend of the past few years getting away from civics and government, we need to get back to that because people need it clearly. Media literacy there has been Interesting Research on how people can consume information unilaterally, it actually puts quite a bit of work on the shoulders of the consumers, youre going to need to take an effort consuming this information and effort when you buy a car and a mattress and you need to do your homework and lb good and something you can depend on, that is not the way people have traditionally consumed information in hopes were in it. I think that such a great point, i spent a lot of time in class looking at Different Levels of cognitive information that we found we will have to be as americans more cognitively effortful when encountering news, it is not just Media Companies or Fact Checking organizations, those of us interested in a shared set of facts, its going to be on all of us, were going to have to take information seriously and think more critically and put our thinking caps on, that probably will help distinguish real news from fake news. We have a couple of minutes left and i would like to go around to each of you and ask a dual question that i would love for you to put in and that is what if you personally professionally learn from this extraordinary moment that we are in and how without fashion maybe one clear recommendation that you might make to a News Organization and credible News Organization how it can be more effective in reaching more people with Accurate Information in the midst of the info democrat as we sometimes call it. Angie will you go first. What i learned how important it is to stay committed her principles in the media we are subject to a lot of abuse, the criticism from different sectors of the public is huge, at the end of the day we need to look at ourselves and say did i do do i think you did a good job giving people the most complete factual fare information and the answer is yes, we need to be satisfied with that, we will not please everybody, for news consumers, i would say find a News Organization that you trust and has a good complete offering of information and engaged with that News Organization and supported with your subscription and your attention because i really feel strongly, ill just pick up the news that i need and ill see it on my facebook or ill catch you on the corner of my eye, that is not good enough, we need to be engaged. Theres a very interesting thing that you raise quickly what is trust is it a News Organization that reflects your worldview or the News Organization that makes you feel comfortable because they explain what they are doing, transparent, they convey their professionalism and they make clear and they challenge everybody in a respectful but appropriate way, i think the notion of trust is also up for grabs, how about you, what has this moment in time taught you, what would you recommend to a News Organization to do a job better like maybe your own. This moment in time has taught me how fragile our Democratic Institution is in the first and foremost of them is the press in truth itself without which initiated set of facts, you cannot have a functioning democracy, thats the big 30000foot view that is kind of scary but i do think that News Organizations like mine can continue to try as hard as we can to describe transparent, challenging listeners, not making them feel comfortable, too many people go to the media for affirmation not information and i also think Media Organizations should be involved in some kind of a bigger educational effort like we were talking about, Civics Education, k12, the New York Times in the classroom, remember that, there used to be the School Additions of papers. The organizations that could go. They could go into the schools, whole generation of kids, more than one thanks that you get your news from your facebook feed, that somebody else should carry the information that you consume every day, that is horrifying to me so i would say my Media Organization could do better along with every other one at training news consumers, i agree it is a burden, youre asking a lot of people, maybe were asking too much and maybe if there was more Accurate Information out there we wouldnt have to put the whole burden on the news consumer who is really busy and stressed in 100 different ways that they have to figure out the difference between misinformation and factual reporting, maybe we could do better. Thank you, for the final word become to the professor who is done the research, that is one take away and what do you think one thing News Organizations can do differently and better. I really been surprised by the large role that elite norms play in our discourse, a memory that i find again and again, every day americans across the political spectrum are willing to respond positively, dont think thats true about political leaders and its been to the extent that we have a problem of misinformation in this country in a more committed because of our political leaders and the importance of political elite norms is so massive and in terms of recommendations, i would suggest the flipside, its true we dont do nearly enough, i was just thinking about time for kids, a representative reading that, the time for kids does not exist anymore, im not sure, in the study of misinformation in particular, we found that older people are more likely to share this information than younger people, i would say we dont need a k12 Education Program we need an Education Program for people who did not grow up as digital magazine, 55 plus more likely to share misinformation online, we need to do two things at once, we need to have a campaign designed to educate young people and also educating the older generation about how to spot fake news and distinguish it from actual news. Thank you all very much this is been a really interesting conversation, we hope consumers and News Organizations have been listening because we learn a lot from the research and the recommendations made, thank you to all. What role and responsibility to the journalist play for example when she or he has an audience of 55 million in both candidates standing right there, here im referring to the highest states, president ial and Vice President ial debates and we had one of each of mohammed another, this is a conversation id recently with usa today susan page who moderated the Vice President ial debate between mike pence and kamala harris. Thank you so much for taking a few minutes to do this. Its great to be with you. Susan you were in the crosshairs and a big way and the debate as you sat on the stage and will get to the Fact Checking in a minute, what was going through your mind. It was funny when i walked on stage i was a little nervous but once i sat down and the candidates came up i was completely focused on the three of us and i was unaware of anything else i was not thinking about the audience that was sitting behind me, i was not thinking about the 58 Million People who were watching on tv, i was really focused on the three of us on stage and it was surprisingly intimate even though we were 12 feet apart which i thought might seemed like a lot, we were able to see one another and the only thing i was unable to see was the fly. [laughter] you can see that now. What was the approach you took going into this debate in terms of your role if any for calling out the statements, misinformation, outright lies, misinterpretation. I thought about that a lot beforehand and i talked about the folks on president ial debates and with other people i respected, i thought it was different from doing an interview or being at a news conference, if i was doing an interview i would interrupted more often redone more challenging realtime on facts and statements and i wouldve pushed harder, that was my role as a moderator, my role was too post a question that i hope was shortly drawn, narrowly drawn to getting answer into try to have a situation with the two candidates debated one another where they interacted with one another where they challenge one another and i wanted to be a situation where they were thinking about the moderator they were thinking about the candidate. Ahead of time when the misinformation and disinformation are so prevalent, what responsibility if any do you think a moderator has . I think journalists have a big responsibility, i think there Fact Checking by usa today, by the New York Times, by the Networks People were trying to keep a close eye on Fact Checking, i do not think that was the role of the moderator, other people may disagree, other people might have handled that in a different way if you had been the moderator maybe would have handled it a different way, good or ill that was a deliberate decision on my part to make the debate and debate between them, not an interview by me are there ways as you have now experienced the debate like this to hold candidates, debaters accountable in real time . One of the things that i think i might have done if i had to do it over again was to make a point when the candidate did not answer question that i asked which happen with both candidates but especially Vice President pence, i think i mightve noted in a more direct way, my thought was maybe the other candidate would do that, that does not happen the way i thought it might, other than that, but again i did not want people to say that moderator was really tough, i wanted them to come away into the debate was interesting and illuminating, who was the moderator. Someone suggested one way to do was have an independent panel of judges sitting in real time and Fact Checking what the candidates are saying in a debate like this and that would go up on the screen, may not come to the moderator but a split screen or crawl, what do you think about an idea such that. Im all for innovation and i think we how to be open to try new things, i think someone who wanted that experience had a number of websites they couldve one and watching for Fact Checking realtime against the debate, one thing to keep in mind, you want this debate to come across as fair to both sides and as a chance for each side to make their case, i worry that independent panel of judges sounds great but we found in this atmosphere is that everybody is seen as taking aside and they worry that it might make the debate seem unfair to one side or the other i do think its important to have access to Fact Checking but i think that is available outside the parameters of the debate itself. Heres what we heard in the Research Supports the Fact Checking does matter, people do observe it, it does help them, they may apply that to the candidates in different ways, you see how many people viewed. 58 million, not that were counting. 58 million in your weeks from a campaign, so this really matters, traditional Fact Checking is done after the debate is over but when you have an audience lot size, do you think there is a higher purpose that the commission on president ial debates should seek in terms of the Fact Checking with an audience that is their right then. It is possible theres different ways to approach things in anothers people who think the debates work well and people who think they dont work well and people think theres no value whatsoever, i would disagree with them, one of the things that i thought was heartening about the debate that i moderated, at access to the polls after the debate watchers, tell me one word that describes the debate that you just watched in the number one was civil in the number two most frequent was informative, that was precisely if you would ask me beforehand what two words i hope it wouldve been those two words, its not a perfect System People may need to go other places to fill out assessments of what the candidates were saying to look for Fact Checking but that was the goal that i had in looking at this debate. There are those that question you the point of the conversation that is taking place online and some say the whole approach is outdated and candidates come in with her talking points and they can engage in disinformation, that can be man enter magnify, amplified through social media in the entire format is dated and done, what do you say that . I would disagree, i think the under rates the intelligence of American Voters in assessing what they see, i think they ask the candidate question and he refuses or dodges whether its joe biden being asked about expanding the Supreme Court or mike pence being asked about the peaceful transition of power, i think americans look at that and say he is dodging the question, thats a question and like to know the answer to, there was such a value in having the two candidates next to each other sidebyside making their case giving them a chance to see them in making their assessments, i love town halls but thats not something that happens at a town hall or paid political and and not something that happens in interview with a friendly anchor from one network or another, its something that happens in only one of the debates people who criticize the commission may not understand what an achievement it is to pull the debates and convince the two candidates to participate, that is especially true with income that president. Is a massive undertaking was there a moment when you are seeing the debate and hearing from the candidates when you heard something that you flat out knew was wrong or misrepresented and you wouldve loved to wave a red flag or something. There were several times when i thought that theyre not answering the questions, i spent a lot of time with a small team of folks and there were four of us working on these questions and doing preparation for this and we tried to hold questions that would be hard to judge because they were narrow rather than broad and the most frustrating was when the candidates not only did not answer the questions, there was times when they did not address the topic at hand and that was what i thought, maybe i should be challenging them more directly but for better or worse i handled it the way i did and i know there are leave ways to handle these things but that more than Fact Checking the statement in my case, i think it was the first president ial debate which was much more difficult to moderate and much higher stakes, i think the Fact Checking maven more important than the Vice President will debate. What would you have done. I dont know. Does there need to be Fact Checking at the president ial. There needed to be a more Civil Exchange at the president ial debate, i think it was hard to even hear what the candidates were saying because there was so much disruption, these are challenging things to moderate and important and dueling to do. Its your opportunity to write the memo to the future, to future journalist or anybody else that would sit in that chair to future producers of Television Networks who are broadcasting these things to the future commission on president ial debates, what are a couple of things in this information world that you would recommend or tell them to be supersensitive to in terms of Fact Checking future candidates. I think Fact Checking is important i dont think its the main thing you do in a president ial debate, i think theres a great need and we should do all that we can have its become a fundamental journalistic responsibility but the goal of the debate is to get people to give American Voters the chance to see the candidate, assess what they think, take the measure of your character, decide if there answering the question that they think are important, i would not want the debates to be overtaken by the value of Fact Checking is valuable is that is i dont think thats a fundamental task of a president ial debate. Thank you so much for your time and for doing the debate, not an easy thing in this very challenging environment, i really appreciate. This conference, digital citizenship in a pandemic will continue, we will take a short break and asking to rejoin us about 15 minutes, they will moderated discussion that will explore the impacts of covid19 disinformation of communities of color frontline Public Health experts and advocates will consider the cost and the consequences. See you in 15 minutes. You are watching cspan2, your unfiltered view of government, created by americas Television Company as a Public Service and brought to today by your television provider. We are joined by capitol hill im like brown republican of indiana and you will remember that he is
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.