Digital citizenship pandemic, political information and action in 2020. I am rebekah tromble, director George Washington universitys institute for data, democracy and politics and and i am pleam welcome you to our conference. Today we had the opportunity to speak to a number of renowned experts, academics, journalists, medical and Public Health professionals as well as grassrootsro activists about how the coronavirus pandemic has reshaped digital communication, campaigning and activism in the lead up to what is the most consequential elections in this nations history. We will discuss thehe challengef Fact Checking political claims in real time, the targeting and effects of this information on communities of color, potential postelection violence being organizedol online and much, muh more. However, before we begin our first panel i would like to invite you to watch a few remarks from George Washington universitys president. Good morning. Im thomas leblanc, president of the George Washington university and i am pleased to welcome you toni todays event, hosted by gws institute for data democracy andpo politics. During these past several months the pandemic and president ial election cycle have put digital politics front and center. And our university has been leading research and conversation that shed light on the developments that are definingng our lives and changig 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, helping the public, journalists and policymakers understand digital medias influence on Public Discourse while developing sound solutions. Perhaps now more than ever this work is n vital. In the short time since its creation, the institute has worked on investigative pieces with journalists, hosted events with policymakers and academic experts, and become a force for factbased information in a sea of misinformation. Most recently our research tap into twitter and facebook data to 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 are undermininge democratic ideals and targeting vulnerable and marginalized members of society, events like today cannot misunderstand the rise and role of online disinformation. They also up 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. Through the efforts of her institute for data, democracy and politics, i am confident that this impact now includes making us all better informed and better engaged digital citizens. Thank you for joining us today for this important event. And now i would like to turn the program over to my colleague at the institute for data, democracy and politics, frank sesno. Thank you, to all who are joining us today as we gather virtually obviously amid a pandemic confronting theob disparities that are made worse, challenged by the reckoning we all know so well, now just days from election that is so divided this country. It is fair to say that our very survival on so many levels depends on credible factbased information. And yet this information is under siege, as never before. We are awash in disinformation, conspiracy theories, threats, demonization, deliberate misstatements of fact. And it comes to us, all of this, from foreign adversaries as well as National Leaders in person, on the air come across social media. Those who seek to inform the public honestly, accurately must compete in this brutal information ecosystem. How do they confront it . What should they cover . What should they ignore . Which is a 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 crawl at the bottom of the screen, Fact Checking. If its off by one when hundreds of her purpose its like i had that getting pinocchios. It took 221 221 days to geto 1000. We are the people who are annoyingly precise and analyzing your every word. Dont even try to say every or always because it usually never ever always. We had an avalanche of line from President Trump. We have af higher deficit wih china now that we did before. That was a case two years ago but not y now. And im okay with electric cars. Im all for electric i get big incentive for electric cars. Hes try to limit programs to encourage their manufacturing and sales. What biden said abouto trump is not quite that cut and dried. Most residents have one big false claim. President trump doesnt just have one. There are more than 400 claims he is repeated more than three times since taking office. Some of those hes made literally hundreds of times. Nearly one in six Small Businesses have closed this year. Thiss is accurate but it nees context. We make that partially true. We rate that is inconclusive. We rate that as false. I have said to the Fact Checking you better fact f check yourself whoac are the Fact Checkers . We dont know. Angie Drobnic Holan is ever in chief of politifact. Hi, angie. I think you are muted so if you unmute yourself there we go. Good to see you. Ethan is an assistant professor George Washingtons University School of needy public school. Thanks for joining, ethan. Great to be here, frank. And mara liasson, Award WinningNational Correspondent for npr him. When the most respected voices in viticulture listen. Welcomel to you. Lets go to the questions now. Angie id like to start with you. You. You are editorinchief of politifact. Your report on the Politifact Team that won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting so you know this well. You do it incredibly well and you have been doing it for a while. Question for you. Pandemic and politics have collided in really unprecedented way. What kinds of things are you find yourselves confronting at politifact as result of that collision . Well, its been the busiest and most frenetic Campaign Season that i can remember. There is so much conversation of whats going on, so much misinformation online. We basically a Fact Checking wholesale everyday and in addition to Fact Checking the normal policy disputes that would happen, we also Fact Checking misinformation about a pandemic that is spread online. And then we have the unusual situation where the president is sometimes the source of misinformation with his tweets are what he says. So lots of Fact Checking going on, and facts are really in dispute right now not always i havent seen in the past. That video we were going to see which we didnt see was going to be an in academy of the things that are out there, said byof them being the president of the United States in terms of a flood of Fact Checking. Angie,e, question, what are you focused on in your Fact Checking especially with covid collision covid and politics come what are examples of the types of thing ship in fact, of late . Some of the examples weve seen from President Trump, he says were of the best country fighting covid and he will fight the statistics, but were not. Were kind of in the middle. Were not the worst but were not the best either. Es suggested the vaccine is imminent when there are clearly still going through testing. And then we see things not repeated by trump budgets online, a lot of misinformation about health. Things like mask wearing can be harmful. Thats not true. Theres no evidence to suggest that. Some things weve seen young people are immune. They are not immune. Being older is definitely more of a risk factor again people get sick and sometimes die as well. And then we have seen just a plethora of claims about fake cures, things like bleach or vitamin c or warm water which is really weird, that t are just nt true but they seem to gain traction and travel throughout the internet. Ive also heard from doctors directly, angie, about which stuff thats out there come segments i had one doctor told had a patient, in who told him that hed seen online literally had seen online africanamericans cant get covid, which of course is not only hardly not true treatment contrary to the paint fact that african americans, people of color getting sick and dying and disproportionate numbers. Are you Fact Checking that stuff, that joke that is out there . Yes, were basically Fact Checking everything we can fact check. What happens is this is a new disease and so scientists, the best science and evidence has been building up since we started. There are questions about who is the most affected, and the we run into like the things we always dealt with is the where the Healthcare System that is Racial Disparities and income disparities. People are not always getting the best care and then we are trying to figure out like what is going on with this disease, it has a lot of strange symptoms that can be different for every person. We have noticed people a very Different Health outcomes acceptable get over it quickly and some people die and then you have the range of outcomes in between. But it does seem to be a disease that is impacting communities that of only been under stress. So the africanamerican community, the latino community. Its like, to wrap up, its a new disease and its coming into an American Society that already has a lot of health care disparitiesad. Your research on public understanding of your next book also love the truth about political mistruths in the trumpcare. We will cut to the chase on all that. As angie was pointing out we had this infodemic of covid misinformation and disinformation. At the same time as we have a president of the United States who himself is actively spreading it. My question for you, you just contributed to debunking handbook which describes itself as a quick guide responding for misinformation. So let me ask you to kind of weight in first on the kind of work that angie is doing and that the efficacy of Fact Checking in and an apartment ss this . Theresen no doubt were livg in a world worrisome amount of misinformation. The good news is groups like angies group are really effective at what they do. Fact checking insofar as we are talkings about reducing the release of misinformation can be really effective. Ea so if you go into the politifact website at any given day youll see exactly what angie is talkg about. They are Fact Checking everything, viral facebook post, Fact Checking statements by donald trump. My research has shown an research ive done with my collaborators as shown in fact, checking makes people more accurate, that people who are fact checked come to believe the truth. Thats thed good news. The worrisome news, sort of the flipside of that is maybe not enough people are consuming fact checks, that sometimes the people who spread most of the misinformation, people who believe the most of the misinformation dont go on the Fact Checking sites on their own accord. Thats the challenge. When people see fact checks come people become more accurate. What journalists, what media leaders and political leaders need to do is focus on getting the fact checks to the people who need d them. Could you back backup just e people really are clearm. About this. In your research when you say Fact Checking works, what have you found is the effect on people . Does it corrector impression, change your opinion, alter their behavior . Sure. There are many different possible effects of Fact Checking. The first effect, the first order fact has to do with whether or not people believe the fact check, or do they believe in this truth . Early research was skeptical the people leave the fact check. Working with the team of coauthors for years what ive shown that people believe the fact check more than they believe that misstatement which is to say that i checking pushes people factual beliefs in the accurate direction. Thats true on average, not true for everybody. You should do what i tell companyor they say that i know somebody who does respond to fact checks. That may be true, but on average people respond to fact checks by becoming more factual accurate. Thats exciting news. As for the other possible effects of Fact Checking, such as political beliefs, changing peoples voting preferences, the evidence for that is less definitive. It seems oftentimes fact checks dont change peoples political attitudes, but it does seem to change the factual veracity of peoples beliefs. Let me go over to mara liasson. You covered i think by my count eight president ial elections now come Something Like that . You are muted. Can you undo yourself . I am needed. It feels like 800 come just. Im sure it does especially now. Youu are nprs White House Correspondent during the Clinton Presidency so you covered wideouts in the belly of the beast. What we are seeing is nothing weve experienced before. How would you say the kind of misinformation around this pandemic which provides this kind of very unstable floor of Everything Else we are experiencing right now is overlapping politics, affectig the way you are covering politics this election cycle . The pandemic is a a number e issue. Itsco been completely politicid to say it overlaps i think isnt even strong enough. Its completely melded and merged with the pandemic and the election are one thing. The pandemic is a metaphor. Masks are a metaphor. Donald trump, his experience with getting covid is to show how strong he is and how he feels 200 years younger. Oresteia is as good as he did 20 years ago if you could say thats a piece of misinformation. That come would make you feel better. So to me its completely merged. Having the pandemic and what politicians say about the pandemic is the same thing. Its one and the same. It inseparable from covering the election campaign. How do you decide, mara, how to balance your coverage and how to frame the coverage . Is the president of the United States said something that is incorrect or highly disputed by experts, angie at politifact fact checks and says its wrong, how do you decide how to cover that . Well it depends. There are a lot of different ways. I used to make a joke that back in 2016 when the president did something come said something that was outrageous or broken norm, like and what to punch the protest into phase come what was i supposed do as an objective journalist . Go out and interview someone who is antipunching protested and face . Thats ridiculous. Now what we do is we try to get the fact check as close to this statement of ms. Of it as possible. You see when you Fact Checking the person as hes speaking. You can do that on tv writing radio we often do a true sandwich. I dont never came up with a true sandwich originally. The ideas you dont just let the president Say Something in the sake but experts say this is not true. He said it b by saying the president falsely claim or claims without evidence, you have insight because hes a president , whatever he says is by definition is and you come out of this and you explain why thats not accurate. Thats one way we do it. The other thing is, and this is something i wanted to ask ethan and maybe we can get back to this later, the difference between misinformation and disinformation. Even talked about how people are fact check become more accurate. That sounds like they made a mistake or they gave misinformation. But theres a whole universe of people including the the presit of the United States and many, many parts of the republican universe that dont, but do not respond to being fact fact chek because they dont care because they are pushing disinformation. In other words, intentional falsehoods for a political purpose. Its like when the president gives a shout out to qanon and praises him for being against pedophilia. Thats not a mistake that he made that can be fact checked. Thats on purpose. But in terms of what we do, editors at npr have this challenge every single day. The New York Post story comes that we can talk about the latest but Hunter Bidens computer. Doha we cover the fact that loo, the New York Post says that theres this and this on Hunter Bidens computer or do we say whoa, heres a story that some experts say is s a classic casef russian disinformation. What did you do . We had many News Organizations have a new beat in the less i dont know ten, 15 years, media beat. We have a reporter covering the media. What we did is david composer media reporter covered it as a media story. The New York Post did this, why, and then talked about all the ways that might be inaccurate. Might be a russian disinformation campaign, et cetera. Si we didnt not cover it. Its out there. Even if twitter tries to block is, the New York Post has a website so it is available. Thats how he came at it. This gets to one of the core dilemmas, and i want to come to ethan to respond to what c you just said. One of the core dilemmas about do you cover something, and by covering something because its out there you elevate it. But more through a couple questions your way so let me let you respond to disinformation or misinformation. You pick on one of the most interesting tensions in the o study of Fact Checking misinformation, c which is possibly different reactions to Fact Checking, when you look at Fact Checking when applied to republican or political elites,f and every day nonpolitical elites partisans. One way to think about this is donald trump himself may respond to a fact check by rejecting the fact check. 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 a this to the Different Levels of commitment that partisan, that elite politicians have, compared to, you know, everyday partisans. Elite politicians make typically more invested cognitively in misinformation and disinformation compared to everyday people say, okay, fine, i understand that is false information, set that aside and move on with their lives and i think thats an interesting dynamic. Can i come over to you . I just want to ask about this and another effect that it has which is something thats been raised a lot and the media has been criticized a lot false equivalency, such as climate change. Many are keeping score and you may call it false equivalency, whether the Fact Checking is false or fair. To be honest you come under criticism from those on the right who say you are biased. How do you address that, how do you address that at a time when you have a president who seems to be particularly fast and loose will the facts . I have to say i get a lot of emails from readers who are fans of President Trump who say, like youre biased because you fact checked the recent debate and you know, maybe you found 12 things wrong that President Trump said, but you only found four things wrong that joe biden said and that means that youre biased. And i have a couple of different responses to that. The first thing i say is, well, tell me what we missed from jo ebb and well take a look. Because we dont, you know, were nonpartisan Fact Checkers, we do have a commitment to Fact Checking both parties, all candidates and so thats the first thing. The second thing i say is, if trump said 12 things and biden said four things, i cant leave out eight things to have an illusion of if it appears biased to some members of the audience, well, thats kind of just the way it goes. You cant we cant sacrifice our 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, how we evaluate claims. We are human beings, so there is some subjectivity to it, but i think overall, we get very close to an objective method of looking at the candidates and then Fact Checking what they say. At the end of the day, i think our commitment to the craft of journalism has to be higher than making things look different than they are nlt i want to look at something out of the debunking handbook and mara, i want to look at how that can be applied to the real world of journalism where you work. First, a quick look at what the debunking handbook is. Sure, the debunking handbook came out last week, its an up version of what came out in 2011. Of the original debunking handbook, you know, that came out about nine years ago now, we spoke a lot about back fire. Back fire is the idea that if youre fact checked, you would respond by back firing, and becoming more convinced in the initial misperception of this statement. Subsequent work that ive been a part of has cast doubt on the frequency. Its pretty rare. In the new debunking handbook, we summarized the literature on debunking and the scientific concensus. And 22 protesters from all disciplines talking about how to best debunk and the sort of headline recommendation from that handbook is debunk often and debunk aggressively. Dont be shy, exactly. So let me ask you about this. In the debunking handbook under the little headline header, misinformation can be sticky, it says the following. Fact checking can reduce peoples beliefs in false information, however, misinformation often continues to influence peoples thinking, even after they receive and accept a correction. This is known as the continued influence effect. Id like you to explain that because then i want to apply it to how reporters are supposed to address this. Sure, sure, theres been work showing that even if a fact check is effective at reducing misperception, peoples related views night be affected by the initial misinformation. For example, if donald trump issued misinformation attacking his political opponent and that polit polittefact will move away from the information and theyll become more responsive in the direction of greater accuracy, but they still might hold a lower opinion of the politician who donald trump used to smear with misinformation. Thats a concerning problem, i think. Okay, so mara, you know, weve long operated, you and i covered the white house together and weve done that and we know how all president s and their Communications Teams try to throw information out there, because they want us to echo that and they want to put that out there. In an environment such as this, thats so a challenged with this idea of continued influence effect. Do you change the way you put that information out there in how do you address that reality . Youre muted, mara, sorry. Okay. Sorry. This is a really, really, really tough problem. Because were so tribal. Because of the tribalizing effects of social media, you know, whatever we do to discuss a piece of misinformation or disinformation, were putting that piece of disinformation out there and by definition, i guess were giving it more life or air time. Npr is a mainstream News Organization. The factbased News Organization. We try to surround this miss of misinformation or disinformation with as much context and Fact Checking as we can. But what we found, i mean, maybe even you can talk about this, but there are plenty of trumps voters who say, i know hes a liar, i dont care. Im still for him. In other words, thats i guess a different question. You know, they think they know what reality is, but they dont care, but the ability of political actors to create an alternative set of reality, i mean, alternative reality, dont forget we started the Trump Administration with the famous quote, alternative facts, we thought there was only one set of facts and we thought that democracy depended on a shared set of facts and then you worked your way to sometimes vehement to explain what is happening, to explain why a person is per vaing information or an organization is doing that, thats all that we can do. I think the notion that we could somehow not disseminate it, as if we can control it. I mean, the internet is uncontrollable. Social media is uncontrollable. This is really hard and i think that the thing that makes it harder, it goes without saying, in 2016 most of the information and disinformation was coming from russia, sometimes in broken english and now its generated in this country by the president of the United States often and also by political actors. There was a piece on axios of all of these fake local news outlets that say on their home page that we provide you with unbiased fact checked information and theyre all, you know, fronts for republican pr groups. All right. This is what im saying, this is really, really hard. I dont have a great answer for you except for the just slog along and do our factbased analytical thing. I will say, mara though, come to you, sort of fact check the checks and know what is legitimately mara and i had a conversation with a Network President , ill be writing something about this, but this person actually suggested that there could be a scenario for which this News Organization would not report what the president said or would so drop it down into the story to diminish it, if, for example, he claimed on election day or Election Night that President Trump said he was winning when the evidence suggested otherwise or we knew that there were a lot of close states with a lot of mailin ballots that had not been counted. Can you imagine as a reporter ignoring that but that example isnt just disinformation, thats the president of the United States making a political act that is consequential, that will be pushed back against by all sorts of actors, including the secretary of the states, you know, all over the country, who havent finished counting their ballots. Thats a little different. I cannot imagine in on Election Night let me just be clear, the choice isnt oh, were just going to cover the president declaring victory or were not. Those arent the two choices to kind of try to ignore that hes just declared victory or have him declare victory as if its legitimate. Were going to have to put that in a humongous truth sandwich. The president of the United States wants to delegitimize the election, and stop the counting and we have to cover that. I think that the president of the United States is being covered differently. Sometimes networks, including fox are not carrying his rallies life thats a little different. But there are tieins that the News Organizations 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 what gets you to the top of the newscast, something thats the most important, the most newsy. The top of the newscast as you know the most sensational and how did you not at npr. [laughter] fair enough. Well, this conversation remind me that misinformation is a societywide problem and the media cannot solve it on its own and i think sometimes we get into this mindset and sometimes our audience puts on it, if the media acted differently, everything would be fine. Thats not true. This misinformation and just kind of this assault on facts is also coming from the political process. Its coming from political leaders, its coming from voters. Thats a very hard thing to deal with. You know, the political leaders are extremely responsive to the public. I mean, i see that over and over. And like, for example, why dont the republican senators hold President Trump more accountable for things . Theyre afraid of the voters. Theyre afraid of the republican primary voters so when we talk about the problem of misinformation, we really have to look at all sectors of society and including the text platforms, we havent talked about them yet. They have a very significant role to play. Its like we all have to do our part if were going to get to a more fact based public discussion. In this context, i wanted to ask you about something that ethan raised earlier. That is that fact checks can affect if you see the fact checks. How are you at politifact working to get to new audiences, different audiences who may not repeatedly consume fact check . Its been like a whole new world being an independent nonprofit online News Organization because were pushing our content out through more channels than ever before. You know, we email, we put them on twitter, we put them on facebook, we have partnerships with onto ground News Organizations and we partner with facebook. This has been a very Interesting Program where we fact check context on facebook and feed our fact check back into facebook. Facebook enabled this program so people who arent looking for fact check content they look for something thats false and get a little note that says this has been fact checked by third party Fact Checkers and those people are coming to us. Were also putting our fact check information on new platforms, like whatsapp. We have an alliance with whatsapp and doing fact check and on tik tok. Were trying to reach them. The audience is high fragmented. You cant do one thing and expect that everyone will see it. Thats not true. Have you had a partnership with fox news . We have not, although i would welcome that conversation if fox news wanted to come to the table i mean, you know, its a tough one because like the fox news example is it very challenging because they are an independent News Organization. Theyre doing their own work, but they also, i mean, i think its fairly welldocumented and could speak to this that fox is often a source of misinformation. How do you deal with that. Thank you very much you took the question right out of my mind, ethan to you. What about the role of fox and certainly breitbart and the other super partisan Media Outlets . And what about the effort to reach a wider, broader audience. What does the research indicate as to success of that. I think that angies efforts and politifacts effort, everyone is doing what they can for a more factually based world which is such a challenge in part because of Media Outlets interested in disseminating misinformation. It remind me of maras point of observation, certainly people will say i support donald trump, i dont care that hes a liar, im going to support him nonetheless. There are two studies, first that he was ducted live during president ial debates in 2016. We fact checked in realtime trumps misstatements and what we found was that people who were Trump Supporters would respond to fact checks by becoming more accurate, okay, but at the same time there would be no damaging effects on their political views. So Trump Supporters to see a fact check of donald trump become no less supportive of trump because of that fact check, they do become more accurate. Ive always thought from my perspective, fox news, donald trump, conservative media eco system shouldnt fear fact checks at all. Peoples political views are pretty deep. If were interested in making a more informed public we can fact check without worrying about dramatically shaping the ideological views of those who consume them. Im sorry, go ahead. Yeah, ill just jump in on that. I think its, sometimes people have a tendency to see Fact Checking through a partisan lens, oh, its the conservatives who are wrong. If wed had a jeb bush presidency theres no doubt in my mind it would have been very conservative, very factbased. He was a different sort of person had much more of a research bent himself. I mean, this stuff does not factuality has no Political Party that its attached to and these trends that we see now, they can change. So, i think if we are going to be dedicated to factuality, we need to be dedicated to nonpartisanship. Can i have a question to ethan and angie, so youre saying that Fact Checking makes a difference might not make them in partisan leanings, but accept the facts. Have you done any studies or any work on a Civic Education curriculum that would include Media Literacy . One of the things that i always have felt is the reason why people have so much such a hard time telling the difference between facts and falsehood is because theyre not trained to consume news in a critical manner and if that could be and we dont have Civics Education at all hardly at all, if that was a part of a kthrough 12 curriculum that included civics and media, who knows what else, Financial Literacy if you have a more informed sophisticated news consumer and you have to train people to see that, would that make a difference . I havent personally doing done this, however, a great paper that came out that looked at the effects of literacy campaigns and did a positive effect, that News Literacy messages, distributed, made people more capable of distinguishing fake news from real news. So, i think theres a lot to be said for news rit literacy campaigns and of course im with you 100 and i hope that use literacy in Civics Education comes to play a strong role in k through 12 education. Any thoughts on that . I saw an explosion over the last few years, politifact started off media for teens and now literacy for seniors. So, i think that that is absolutely needed, but you know, i think thats a knew frontier for research. You were asking whether its proven or not, i think were still trying to figure that out. I think the signs are positive, but i think more study is needed and then what you said about civics not being taught in school, like, we desperately need more civics taught in school and the educational trends of the past few years, getting away from civics and government is we need to get back to that because people need it clearly. And Media Literacy, Interesting Research how people can consume information more laterally and other things, it actually puts quite a bit of work on the shoulders of the news consumer. You need youre going to need to make an effort and youre going to need to make an effort consuming this information in the same way that you make an effort to buy a mattress and have something that it depends on. Thats not how people consume information. Its not going to be universal on that, anything you want to say . Thats such a great point. I spend a lot of time in class talking about Different Levels of cognitive engagement that we have. Were going to have to be as americans more effortful when it comes to news. To angies point its not just Media Companies and Fact Checking organizations, for 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. Were going to have to think more critically. Were going to have to put our thinking caps on when we encounter news because that probably will help us distinguish real news from fake news. We have just a couple of minutes left and id like to go around to answer to a dual question to answer. That is sort of, what have you personally professionally learned from this extraordinary moment that were in . And how would that fashion maybe one clear recommendation that you might make to a News Organization, a credible News Organization how it can be more effective in reaching more people with Accurate Information in the midst of this infodemic that we sometimes call it. Angie, do you want to go first with that . Yeah, what ive learned is how important it is to stay committed to our own principles in the media. Because we are subject to a lot of abuse, i dont know any other way to put it. The criticism from different sectors of the public is huge. So, at the end of the day, i think we need to look at ourselves and say do i think i did a good job giving people the most complete factual, fair information i could . If the answer is yes, we just we need to be indicated with that, were not going to please everybody. For news consumers, i would say find a News Organization that you trust and that has a good, complete offering of information and really engage with that News Organization, support it with your subscriptions, support it with your attention because i really feel strongly if people just are like, oh, well, ill pick up the news i need. Ill see it on my facebook feed or catch it out of the corner of my eye a tv. Thats not good enough. We need to be engaged news consumers. Theres a thing you raise here, what is trust . Is trust an organization that respects your world view or makes you feel comfortable because they explain what theyre doing, theyre transparent about their sources and they convey their professionalism and make clear that they challenge everybody . Or anybody in a respectful, but appropriate way . I think that notion of trust is also up for grabs. Mara, how about you . What has this moment in time taught you . What would you recommend to a News Organization to do better maybe like your own . Look, this momentum time has caught me how fragile our democrat hurricane iric organiz and the first and foremost the 30 rs foot view thats kind of scary, but i think that News Organizations like mine are trying to be what we describe, transparent and not people going to media for information not affirmation and all Media Organizations should be involved in some kind of a bigger, Civics Education, k through 12. There used to be the New York Times in the classroom, remember that . There used to be these School Editions of people. Local organizations that could go into their local go into the schools. And you know, a whole generation of kids, more than one, thinks that you get your news from your facebook feed. Like you know, that somebody else should curry the information that you get every day. Thats horrifying to me so i would say that my Media Organization could do better along with every other one at training news consumers. Now, yes, i agree with ethan, its 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 poor news consumer who is also really busy and stressed in about 100 different ways that they have to figure out the difference of between misinformation and factual reporting. Maybe we could do better, lifting the burden off them. Thank you. For the final word we come to the professor who has done the research. Whats one take away that youve learned and what is one thing that you think that News Organizations could do better . Sure, im always im surprised by the large role that elite norm play in our discourse. In my research i found again and again that Everyday Americans across the political spectrum are willing to respond positively to fact checks. I dont think thats true about political leaders. And its been to the extent that we have a problem with misinformation in this country and im more and more convinced its because of our political leaders. So the importance of elite norms is i think so massive here. In terms of recommendations, i would sort of suggest the flip side. Its true we dont do nearly enough anymore, i was thinking about time for kids. I grew p reading time for kids. Does time for kids exist anymore . Im not sure. In the steady of misinformation in particular, we found that older people are far more likely to share misinformation than younger people. He so, i would say we dont just need k through 12 Education Program. We need an Education Program for people who are who do not grow up as digital native, 65plus, and those people that tend to be far more likely to share misinformation jn online, so we need to do two things at once, education young people while educating the older generation how to spot fake news and distinguish it from actual news. Thank you, reporter mara liasson and thank you very much. And we hope the News Organizations have been listening because weve learned a lot from the research and recommendations made. Thank you all. So, what role and responsibility should the journalists play, for example, when he or she has an audience of 55 million and both candidates standing right there . Here im referring to the highest stakes, president ial and vicepresident ial debates, we just had one of each and were going to have another. This is a conversation i had recently with usa todays susan who moderated between vicepresident pence and kamala harr harris. Thanks, susan, you were in the crosshairs and sitting on the stage. Well get to Fact Checking. What went through your mind . I was nervous, but once the candidates stepped up, i was completely focused on the three of us. I wasnt thinking about the audience sitting behind me. I wasnt thinking about the 58 Million People watching on tv. I was just really focused on the people on stage and it was surprising intimate, even though we were 12 feet apart which might feel like a lot, we were able to see each other. The only other thing i wasnt able to see was the fly. [laughter] you can see that now. Susan, what was the approach that you took going into this debate in terms of your role, if any, for calling out the misstatements, misinformation, outright lies, misrepresentation. I thought about that a lot beforehand and i talked about that with folks on the commission of debate and folks i respected. I thought it was different from doing an interview. If i was doing an interview, i would have interrupted more, more realtime on facts and statements. I didnt think that was my role as a moderator in this debate. My role as a moderator in this debate was to pose a question i thought was sharply drawn, narrowly drawn and then try to have a situation where the two candidates debated one another and interacted with one another and challenged one another, i wanted it to be a situation people werent thinking about the moderator, they were thinking about the candidates. At a time when disinformation, misinformation are so prevalent and from the campaigns and candidates themselves, what responsible, if any, do you think a moderator has . I think journalists generally have a big responsibility. I think theyre Fact Checking, reallytime Fact Checking by usa today, by the New York Times, by the networks, people were trying to keep a close eye on Fact Checking, but i did not think that was the role of the moderator. Now, you know, other people may disagree. Other people might have handled that in a different way if youd been moderator perhaps handled it in a different way, but for good or ill, that was a deliberate decision on my part to try to make the debate, a debate between them and not an interview by me. Are there ways, as you have now experienced a debate like this, at such a heightened time, to hold candidates, debaters accountable in realtime . Well, one of the things i think i might have done, if i had to do it over again, was to make a point when the candidate didnt answer the question i asked. Which happened with both candidates, but especially with vicepresident pence, and i think i might have noted that in a more direct way. My thought was maybe the other candidate would be doing that, that didnt happen the way i thought it might. So i might have done that. But again, i didnt want people to come away saying, boy, that moderator was really tough. I wanted them to come away saying that debate was really interesting and illuminating. Who was the moderator . Some have suggested, susan, one way to do this is to have a sort of independent panel of judges sitening realtime and Fact Checking what they come through the screen and might not be on a moderator, but through a crawl or a split screen. What do you think about na that . Im all for innovation and new things. I think that some could end up Fact Checking realtime in the debate. One of the things to keep in mind you want this to come across as fair to both sides and as a chance for each side to make their case. And i worry that even, an independent panel of judges sounds great, but what weve found in this atmosphere is that everybody is seen as taking a side, and i worry that it might make this debate seem unfair to one side or the other. I do think its important for people to have access to Fact Checking, but i actually think that its available now outside the parameters of the debate itself. Here is what weve heard and we know that the Research Supports that, that Fact Checking does matter. People do absorb it. It does help them know whats right and wrong presumably and they may apply that to candidates in a separate ways how many people viewed your debate . 58 million, not that were counting. 58 million and youre weeks from a campaign so this matters. Traditional Fact Checking well be leaving this recorded program at this point. Given a reminder you can watch it anytime on the website foxbusiness. Com. Take you live to had an erring had a looking at the Va Mission Act and Veterans Committee looking at community caregivers. Live on cspan2. Are administering the mission act, also very interested in hearing more today about the caregivers implementation as well. Almost every member of our committee, though not physically present at the moment, some are joining in person and others will be joining us, almost every member of our committee will be participating expected in todays hearing. The focus of todays hearing is the implementation