Skip to main content

tv   Fox Report Sunday  FOX News  June 26, 2017 1:00am-2:01am PDT

1:00 am
talk to me and twitter. we'll be back next sunday 11:00 a.m. eastern with the latest buzz.
1:01 am
1:02 am
1:03 am
1:04 am
state department official and author of brave new world. i want to start with you. there's been so much speculation on what this means for the democrat. i think tim ryan had the most had the most memorable quote. he said the democrat brand is more toxic than trump. i think we need a progressive economic populism. one of the criticisms we hear a lot about jon ossoff's campaign is that he would not take the step to endorse medicare for all. he also took off the idea of raising taxes on upper income
1:05 am
groups and i think this is what the democrat need to be doing. they need to embrace medicare for all. there's way too many folks in the country who don't have any kind of health insurance. >> we will get to that a second i really want to talk to this because it's a big story because of the republican healthcare. i want to talk about the other aspects of that, jobs and income, the chart that i think is so explanatory of this movement. incomes have been falling for half the country. what have the democrats got to say about that. >> i can tell you what i have to say about it. i think we need an agenda, i know you've spoken about this on your show that the actual statistics don't really reflect the reality of a lot of americans right now. a lot of folks are working part-time jobs, they would like full-time jobs and can find th them. discouraged workers aren't included in the unemployment statistics. were talking about probably ten or 12 million americans who
1:06 am
should be counted as unemployed or underemployed and the governmental account of anymore. >> what would the democratic, the progressive. >> i think a progressive populist agenda should be looking at the new deal for some inspiration. we need public works, we need investment in infrastructure. this is the wealthiest country on the face of the earth in history and we can afford to do the same kind of things that happen in my dad's generation. >> a lot of comments on the healthcare bill make the same comment. why are the republicans coming out with a bill that cut medicaid and cut health care for the person americans. >> i couldn't disagree with your point more. we tried shovel ready jobs which happen the last of ministration and it didn't work. as for yours, i'm so surprised. i feel like your idea is medium crazy because it helps, working people in this country barely have insurance. no one can afford the premiums they have.
1:07 am
we all know the problems and we all agree. when you go to use it doesn't work. this bill sends it back to the state. maybe some states will make it better but you have no idea. it's putting it back in local control. that's the premise underneath it all. stop with all the mandates. how is that possibly better for rich people and worse for poor people. >> and if you look at any piece of government legislation or program, there are winners and losers. who those winners and losers are does tell a story about your values. >> i don't see how you see it with this one being for the rich. >> one category of the winners very clearly are younger healthy people. that's great for them, but the people who lose the most in this bill are the older poor people and that surely is and what donald trump iran on. >> i think what we've got what he said in the campaign. let's listen to what he said.
1:08 am
>> i am going to take care of everybody. i don't care if it cost me votes or not. everyone will be taking care of much better than they're taking care of now. >> i'm not going to cut social security or medicaid or medicare. >> there's a bit of a difference there between the populist argument that he made in the campaign what were seen coming out of congress. >> i agree, i do worry, melissa, that repealin repealing the taxt benefits largely the wealthy and putting millions of americans out, without insurance is something that isn't really part of the populist agenda. i hope the senate bill teaches, changes it slightly. >> i think there is a good reason for passing it, whatever the defects, just the way that the rules are, you've got to get to what we might all agree on
1:09 am
which is something to get the economy moving and jobs and incomes up which is tax reform. you've got a do the healthcare first. >> melissa said we tried public works before shovel ready jobs. we really didn't. when you take a look at the obama stimulus, about one third was shovel ready jobs that were there are ready. that doesn't include the jobs programs that were in the works. roads and bridges that were already being planned is not really new stimulus. the other two thirds for tax credits that didn't work out too well. >> you prove my point. we tried it and it didn't work. >> later i want to do a special focus on the infrastructure plan that would work because there's a big difference between what was tried before and what we need now. before we go, i wanted to bring up another thing that makes this debate the sleight part of a bombshell report.
1:10 am
first, tell us what was and second doesn't change anything in terms of our understanding of what's going on. >> absolutely. the washington post came out friday with an article that said, for the first time, in early august president obama had clear evidence, not only that russia was meddling in our election and our democracy on multiple fronts, but signals intelligence that vladimir putin himself had authorized it. this, if ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it. i think this is a fundamental problem that goes to the heart of our democracy. it is something that we should be dealing with on a bipartisan issue, we should be working to punish the russians which obama didn't do enough of, and we should sure up our cyber defenses. and then move on to the agenda to help america. >> i think that's a good summary. people are sick of all the investigation.
1:11 am
they want retaliation and then get on with the agenda. >> absolutely. i agree with what he said. why didn't we do anything about it. why did he stop it from happening, why did it only become an investigation and a big deal when donald trump won. >> let me just add to that. >> it's a two-part thing. i believe obama should have done more and president trump has an opportunity to lift the cloud that's hanging over his administration and do what we should've done with russia all along and that's for punishing them. >> i think it's a really good point that there's information that obama had but we've got to get on. i think people need jobs and they need their incomes raised, that's what we've got to get on with. lots more to discuss there. coming up we have a next revolution exclusive. >> there's no way i could let others know what my political beliefs are with out fear of
1:12 am
getting fired. >> so scared for their jobs they had to go undercover. you will meet the conservative valley employees who say they have to stay in the shadows when it comes to politics or they will be unemployed. next, stifling the online hate that could lead to more violence like what happened in virginia. a man is using. [inaudible] it's a fascinating interview,
1:13 am
1:14 am
1:15 am
it's a good thing we brought the tablets huh? yeah, and i can watch the game with directv now. oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens.
1:16 am
welcome back. we could go the attempted assassination of republican members of congress prompted soul searching in washington. but, it didn't last long. this week we saw johnny depp speculating about assassinating the president and hillary clinton and elizabeth warren putting out some ghoulish tweets about blood and death. can technology help? earlier this week i had an absolutely fascinating interview with jared cohen who runs jigs jigsaw. at jigsaw, they think they've inviteinvented a way to use artl
1:17 am
intelligence to fight online hate. take a look. >> thank you so much for joining us today. we really appreciate it. there's been a lot of national soul-searching about the tone of our political discourse, the anger and rage that's out there. there are a lot of factors involved but one thing people have been pointing to his social media and the way people express their views on social media. why do you think people do behave in a different way online. why is there so much anger and hate on social media. >> i think the trend is that people are increasingly splitting their lives between the physical world in a digital world. the internet allows them to experiment with different versions of themselves. the barriers that prevent us from saying or doing different things are just much lower. if you think about how many phone numbers you have, each individual is walking around
1:18 am
with a virtual entourage of themselves so who they are on tuesday may be different than thursday and that applies to all of us. >> what i find interesting and grounds for hope is the work that you are doing, you're actually using technology to try to do something about this phenomenon. tell us a bit more about what you're up too. >> the decline in civility on the internet has become one of the most universally understood challenges that we face. the question that we asked ourselves is can we use machine learning. can we use artificial intelligence to make it easier for publishers to spot toxicity on the web. >> what is that exactly mean. you're saying you can identify through computer algorithms specific words and phrases that are hateful and angry? is that what you're saying. >> with artificial an intellige, it's only as effective as the amount of data you have and how annotated that data is. we built an ai based on a large
1:19 am
amount of training data were any publisher and platform can run the comments on their site to our technology. it returns a score of zero to 100 on how toxic it is. we are defining it by likely to cause someone to leave the conversation. then when a publisher platform does, it's entirely up to them. they may use it to flag certain comments above the threshold for their moderators or decide to have a dynamic dial where the viewer can decide what they want to see or not see. i think this is important. your filtering by tone, not by topic. your filtering by toxicity, not by content. in that sense you're actually making it easier for people to voice their opinion. >> what you're saying is they can express their views on substantive issues, it's just the way they do it that we can control. you're literally giving them a
1:20 am
score, you're using the word toxicity. would hate be a good substitute for that. >> it's interesting so we are experimenting with lots of different ai models. we began with toxicity because it was the easiest to measure based on the training data but were also exploring a sheen learning models that return a score of how insubstantial it is or how off-topic it is. we are experimenting with lots of things. i think what you said is important, when i tell people about this one of the first things they raises this question of isn't the censorship. my response is, look at the default position. there is so much toxicity on the internet that publishers and platforms are shutting down comments altogether. just this past week, in new york times ten human moderators who look at 10000 comments a day for moderation and that only constitutes 10% of the 200 articles they get everyday. they're so overwhelmed by the comments that they don't allow discussion on most of their top
1:21 am
stories and opinion pieces. something like this technology that we built which is called perspective makes it so they can increase the number of articles that allow for discussion four times over. >> my last question is how widely adopted is this work could this be. who's using it at the moment and given that a lot of this conversation is around twitter and how twitter has become the place where a lot of this is expressed, are they able to use it? are they likely to use it. >> any publisher and platform can use this. we are agnostic at jigsaw alphabet about what publishers or platforms do with the score that the technology provides. what's interesting is seeing the different applications. you have somewhere using it to say any comments that are north of 75% toxic we are going to flag. then you have others that are experimenting with authorship where they've determined most of the of noxious comments are not
1:22 am
based on somebody who's mean-spirited, but somebody who doesn't realize their commentary is of noxious. would be nice if we could integrate the equivalent of a spellcheck for toxicity. you also get some who are experimenting with that dynamic way for you and me who haven't completely different views of what types of commentary or discussion were willing to read, to turn the volume up or down. we also see it integrated by product review platforms. anybody can use it right now. what we are looking for is experiments with moderation and viewership and authorship. i think we will see in the next few months how this plays out. >> i thanks to jared cohen. can any of that really stop the online rhetoric that led to hatred and violence? next the panel will weigh in. also, they are afraid to show their face but you have to hear their story.
1:23 am
silicon valley employees who say they have been forced into hiding by their colleagues.
1:24 am
1:25 am
1:26 am
welcome back to the next revolution.
1:27 am
you just heard from jared : from jigsaw who's using artificial intelligence to try to fight online hate. he talked about how you can measure comments and how you can read them weed them out. well that's the end of twitter right there. in fact, the panel, during the interview you were amused. >> well, i think the ideas pretty insane. as he was talking about it, all i could think about was when facebook was sorting real news from fake news and they had such a trouble and had to have a worldwide symposium and bring everyone in. i would say it's easier to tell the difference between real news and fake news than it is someone's tone. what about this idea that you're going to be sorting through people who didn't mean to be rude but didn't know better. >> this is the future. >> every word he used was subjective including the arbiter
1:28 am
who decides what's mean. >> that is a very important question that is yet unanswered. let me give you a slightly different perspective. in the united states and especially in silicon valley, we have a very expansive view of the first amendment. i am german by heritage. other countries have drawn different lines in what's appropriate commentary or not. i thought jared solution was very interesting because it doesn't get into censoring content. as you know, the internet companies operate under a safe harbor rule where they're not allowed to editorialize content and then they can publicize whatever they wanted. they sounded more like a voluntary tool you could use if you wanted to and i think that's very appropriate. >> hang on, i just wanted to ask whether you think this whole conversation is one we need to be having at all.
1:29 am
is it just part of the back-and-forth of debate? are we getting too worked up over all of it. >> i think it's a symptom of a larger problem which is that folks feel frustration that the political discourse is not addressing the real needs. there are not enough public debates between candidates for political office. >> i so agree with that. that's exactly right. i have fought for it in my own races in the past. where i'm from in florida, the new chair of the democratic party has promised to encourage debate between candidates including in primaries. i think that's the direction we have to go. the best way to confront hate speech is by having it lead to proper speech, the debate on real issues. >> by the way, you say that's the best way, if our audience hangs around you will see a very exciting new way to confront hate speech. we talk a lot about social med media. there's also the media itself and there's been a lot of
1:30 am
discussion around how the media, almost as a business priority, there's a really interesting quote from peggy noonan and her comment from a couple weeks ago which i think we've got on screen. it speaks to the point about what the media is doing. by indulging their and their audience rage, they spread the rage. they celebrate themselves. they stood up to man. based stood truth to power. but what courage does that take. the numbers go up, they get a better contract. she's talking about the media anything she specifically called out steven colbert on the late show. is it actually good business and what we do about that. >> i think it is and i think it's on both sides, it's everywhere, that kind of story is easy to pick out. when you sit there and analyze the real detail of the
1:31 am
healthcare bill and you go over things, people get bored. it's harder to make that interesting then to show video of people screaming and yelling or whatever the latest fire is. i certainly appreciate that the media is probably adding fuel to the fire, but i don't know how you solve that if the audience doesn't want the substance when you put it out there. who are we to force them to take it when what they want is to see this other stuff. >> it's like one of those things, ever since i've been involved it's been one of those questions where the politicians themselves say that we actually want to talk about the issues. to your point, i think the debates may be way to it. the debates, people really enjoyed them. >> there were great readings there. there was frustration when a lot of these programs treat politics as a horse race and ignore the issues. i think if there was more presentation of the issues you would have a better informed public and the ratings would probably follow.
1:32 am
>> solve the problem in ten seconds. >> i can't solve the problem, but i do think more debate and substantive debate is important. >> taxpayer money, your money, floating in the d.c. swap. still ahead, this week's swamp watched takes on the military-industrial complex. you can't miss that. next, in the shadows of silicon valley, employees are afraid to go public and tell me why there conservatives believes have them fear for their career. the next revolution that will be
1:33 am
1:34 am
1:35 am
1:36 am
ahh. where are mom and dad? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. love mom and dad' i'm takin' a nap. dude, you just woke up! ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. tonight, a next revolution exclusive. on this show we are fully committed to diversity and tolerance. it's well-known that silicon
1:37 am
valley has a diversity problem. we were interested to learn of a new app built by engineers that allow tech works workers to share their stories of workplace bullying. at the employee's request, we've disguised their identities. >> the day after the election, one of my colleagues said i can't believe how many sexists and racist people are in this country. said what you mean. he said everybody that voted for trump is a sexist and racist. i don't if possible to have a dialogue when there's not a safe space to talk. i think it's pretty funny when you think about how the left is always pushing safe spaces and open dialogue. that's currently the last thing they want to have. >> everyone feeling well come and can talk about anything, pretty much everyone can do that if you're not conservative.
1:38 am
>> there's no way i can let others know what my political beliefs are without fear of being fired or not advancing in the company. it's definitely implied throughout many conversations that i've had that being a conservative is not welcome. i think of this place of being extremely progressive however that's not the case with someone who's on the right side of the political spectrum. >> we live in a country where people are frightened to express their political views at work because being open about them could ruin their career. and, they work at corporations who lecture the rest of us on tolerance and diversity. tim, when you see that, when you see those interviews which, i have to say i live up there and i'm very involved in the tech industry in terms of the people that i know and i run a tech company myself. that's typical.
1:39 am
when you see that, are you upset? >> of course. i'm a law professor. you like to see speech confronting speech. you don't like to see anybody singled out because of their political beliefs or to feel their job is threatened, but a lot of these companies, they threaten workers jobs every day. if somebody wants to form a labor union or organized to form a labor union, every day they are intimidated. we have a union rate that's now below 7%. everyone talks as if labor unions are part of the problem. what we saw this worker complain about was fear of losing his job by expressing his political views. they have to worry about that every day, not just expressing their views, but trying to work to advance their own interest as workers as far as the conditions of their work, their hours, their wages, their terms and
1:40 am
conditions, they have to worry about retribution. i think there has to be protections for folks who want to express their views in the workplace to organize free labor unions and obviously people shouldn't be singled out and fired from silicon valley. >> the first amendment should mean something. if you don't like the speech of the person who's expressing their views, you should confront it. is there an equivalence on the other side. i think it's important to expose to people on the right feeling that their views are not socially acceptable. beyond the workplace do you think there's example of people on the left feeling they can speak out. >> of course. i used to teach at a conservative university and i know there were liberals who were worried about how their own speech and their own political
1:41 am
activism and scholarship might be greeted by the powers that be at the university. i do think you often have liberals who feel threatened in the workplace and probably more than at universities, and big corporations. >> what is your perspective. >> i actually think the roles have flopped in this country and i think it's so interesting. it used to be that the head of corporations were republican and all the working people were democrats and had to have really swapped places. when you talk about the big banks on wall street, they're all registered democrat and it's this liberal elitism in a lot of ways that draw the contrast with the workers were actually people who came out for donald trump, the populace, the working people who came forward and have identified with republicans. it's just amazing to me to see the swap happen. >> that's basically what were trying to highlight on this show. it's very interesting.
1:42 am
>> i've lived in dallas texas and now i live in silicon valley. closemindedness is everywhere and it's getting worse and it's unfortunate. after five for the gentleman, i felt i for people who think they can't unionize and it's something we need to fight on all sides. >> well said. i agree with that very much. coming up, we shine a new light coming up, we shine a new light on the p
1:43 am
1:44 am
coming up, we shine a new light on the p for years, centurylink has been promising fast internet to small businesses. but for many businesses, it's out of reach. why promise something you can't deliver? comcast business is different. ♪ ♪ we deliver super-fast internet with speeds of 250 megabits per second across our entire network, to more companies, in more locations, than centurylink. we do business
1:45 am
where you do business. ♪ ♪
1:46 am
we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the military-industrial complex. the potential for the disastrous rise of miss placed power exists and will persist. >> those powerful words from president eisenhower warned us about the rise of the most costly swamp in washington. the military-industrial complex is this week's swamp watch. >> every week we just giggle at this. it's not a left versus right.
1:47 am
we saw a five-star general one about this 56 years ago and a certain well-known presidential candidate criticized it much more recently. >> they are ordering missiles that they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missile is a contributor. we are buying equipment that we don't even want because certain companies have better political skills. >> we hear a lot about the wasted billions of dollars in our defense budget, but the truly disgusting thing is that it's not waste. waste makes it sound like an accident. this is no accident. it's corruption. here's how it works. the military-industrial complex is made up of three parts. it's known as an iron triangle. the congress and the bureaucracy and then the defense and arms manufacturers who get paid handsomely to provide everything
1:48 am
from security to meals for soldiers. they want lucrative government contracts. how do they get them? you would hope it was by providing the best service for the best value. after all, it's our money and our nation's defense, but in the military-industrial swamp, it's not quality that counts, it's connections. the rotten truth is there is a revolving deal between the defense contracts in the defense contracts. james mattis was paid $242,000 and up to $500,000 in stock options by the company general dynamics that builds tanks and submarines. he also received a $20000 speaking fee. he is now secretary of defense where he has authority over the department nearly $600 billion annual budget. then there is john kelly he was paid $166,000 as an advisor to a
1:49 am
company that gets 96% of its revenue from government contracts and which was recently selected to train immigrations and customs enforcement. he is now secretary of homeland security where he oversees ice. whwhile they were required to sp down from those positions before working for the government, it's typical. these defense companies have been built on having friends in high places. william lynn has made his way through the revolving door three times. he is currently the ceo of the defense contractor leonhard leonardo drx. from 2009 - 2011 he was deputy director where he saw the oversaw the annual budget. before that he was in charge of government operations and strategy. he got his start back in 1993 working in the office of the secretary of defense. then, there's former defense department official kevin janz
1:50 am
who went on to found the companies skyway where his rolodex must've come in handy. the company helps its clients compete for federal contracts. the same contracts he used to dole out. according to their own website. kevin built his company on the premise that no one knows the federal acquisition system better than those contracting officers who managed it on the inside. totally shameless. now, it will come as no surprise to regular viewers that our elected representatives are big part of this triangle. their interests are clear. they want political donations and defense contractors are happy to play ball. every year, a few dozen members of congress at the defense department that the budget which
1:51 am
practically guarantees huge donations from defense contractors. in 2015, the 48 congressmen and senators who sat on the armed services committee received on average 400 30,000 dollars from defense contracts. it's even more of a jackpot if you chair one of these committees. come on down to durbin of illinois. the second-highest highest ranking. in 2013 deserving became chair of the committee which led to a wave of cash accounts several of the top seven largest contributors. beyond political donations, some congressmen have made their own way through the military industrial defense revolving door. in 2013 when the pentagon wanted to count the drones, democratic representative jim moran stepped in and wrote a letter demanding they follow through on the ord
1:52 am
order. what an incredible coincidence that he left congress soon after only to land a job as a lobbyist. president eisenhower was right, but i wonder if even he could have predicted just how swampy the military-industrial complex would turn out to be. now, if any of you at home have suggestions, please e-mail them to us at the next revolutio revolution.com. earlier we saw high-tech answers to online hate. coming up we have a low-tech version, but it's very sweet. in fact, it's a cake. that plus the final four from our panel.
1:53 am
1:54 am
1:55 am
>> earlier tonight we heard from jericho and whose using artificial intelligence to fight hate online. who needs all that high-tech nonsense when you've got troll cakes started in new york earlier this year. the idea is to shame online trolls into better habits by confronting them with their vicious words like on a cake. we have one right here. they are bringing it in. this was a tweet that i got, it gets a little aggressive's to call it a troll but they said
1:56 am
like steve hilton's new show, can you get him to wear up proper business shirt. close make the man. he is scruffy. there it is on the cake, he's scruffy. >> i think she likes your show. >> it's not bad. what you think. >> it's a beautiful cake. >> troll cakes. if you want to beat those trolls, go to troll cake. we've just got a few minutes left. >> i want everyone to brush up on their map. when you hear about cuts on healthcare, it's slowing the growth on spending. it's like saying next week i'm only going to gain 1 pound instead of three. >> the $700 billion cut in medicaid is not a cut. it's in increase of less than what would've been. >> thank you for clearing that up. i'd expect nothing less from our
1:57 am
business channel representative. >> president eisenhower's farewell address, when he warned about the military-industrial complex. he also talked about the need for balancing a strong public sector with the private sector. that you don't have free markets that work well if you don't have strong investment in public infrastructure, and without a strong free-market you won't have the tax base for a strong public sector. as a percentage of the overall economy, federal spending and employment are down to those administration levels. you compare that with the trillions of dollars that the federal reserve has been on wall street and there's a big imbalance. you need a new deal that's when you provide jobs in healthcare and education. >> what's interesting about that is that i think president trump would agree with a lot of that. >> great swamp watch. i will leave you with one thought. our gps satellites are sold to us by the big defense contractors, over $220 million each.
1:58 am
there are several silicon valley firms that build satellites for between two and 5 billion. 220 million and between two and 5 million. >> lots to unpack an in future additions. that's all we have time for tonight. you can learn more about the next revolution by focusing on facebook and twitter. thank you very much to the panel tonight. i'm sorry i won't be here next week because i will be on an rv trip in california. we will see you back here in two >> it is monday june 26th. president trump optimistic about an obamacare overhaul despite pushback from senate democrats and republicans. >> we have a very good plan, i
1:59 am
think we are going get there. obamacare is done. >> will the gop meet the self-imposed deadline? we are live in washington. heather: the supreme court expected to make a ruleing on trump travel pause. will they sink it or keep it will they sink it or keep it mid-air scare. the pilot telling people to pray. heather: we will see how that ended. ♪ ♪ heather: it is a beautiful
2:00 am
morning and good morning to you from here in new york city. look at the live shot as the sunrises and -- beautiful. you're watching "fox & friends first" on the monday i'm heather childers. >> rob: and i'm rob schmit. all eyes on the senate as republicans take one step closer to repealing and replacing obamacare. heather: griff jenkins live in d.c. with details on the health care showdown. good morning, griff. >> not much happening in washington except for the health care bill. it is going to be a very busy week for mitch mcconnell and senate republicans trying to pass the health care bill as the much anticipated congressional budget office could release their score as early as today and optimistic president d

22 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on