tv First Amendment in the Digital Age CSPAN May 5, 2018 8:34pm-11:25pm EDT
interactive constitution and our podcast at our website. next, white house reporters talk about the challenges of covering the white house in the judicial age. -- the digital age. now, a discussion on the first amendment in the digital age. white house reporters talk about in challenges of covering the date -- age of social media. >> i think the silence in the room indicates you are ready to start. good evening and welcome to this year's symposium, truth, trust, and the first amendment in the digital age. inare so pleased to lock this audience here at the press club. our viewers watching on c-span
and those following us on .acebook directorara cochran, of missouri's program which brings students here for a semester to work in a study in the nation's capital. today's program is presented by the university of missouri school of journalism and law. the national press club journalism institute, the reynolds journalism institute and the evelyn y davis foundation. with that backing, how can we fail? we'll hear from these folks in a discussion led by the dean of the university of missouri school of law.
for now, i went to spend a few minutes laying the groundwork for the conversation. while i'm doing that, i went to encourage you to seven's are cell phones and we have some twitter hashtags that you can use displayed on the screen. if you feel moved to tweet, please use those hashtags. challenges the first amendment faces cannot be more relevant to our students and our very democracy. our founding fathers believed an independent press was so vital to democracy that they specifically mentioned a free press is one of the five essential liberties guaranteed in the first amendment. more than 200 years later, the forces of digital technology, political polarization, social
24/7 news cycle are placing intense stresses on the role of the press in our democracy. at a time when the president calls the news media the enemies ofthe people and a 77% americans think journalists make up stories at least occasionally, we have reached a critical point. just in the past week, a television studio ordered its anchors across the country to broadcast identical worded commentary denouncing on a named purveyors -- unnamed purveyors of fake news. mash ups of those videos brought ridicule but also raised fears of the loss of editorial control over local news. also this week, the president suggested that one of our most respected newspapers should
register as a lobbyist for its aser who has a separate role a ceo of america's 12th largest company. that was just last week. these are not happening in a vacuum and they were not created solely by the current president. the credibility of our news media has been declining for more than two decades. aretical divisions affecting what people perceive as truthful and factual and threats have been voiced going back to the previous administration against the first amendment protections of the press. with challenges ranging from questions about social media influence to live a, we have gathered some of the finest scholars and attorneys who will kick off our first panel discussion in just a moment. after that, i will lead the second panel of washington address the same
concerns. at lunch, floyd abrams will be our keynote speaker. our firstbegin with panel, i would like to welcome all of the colleagues from the university of missouri journalism and law schools, traveled from columbia, for you very much students are here studying. could you all please stand and be recognized. [applause] now, i went to give you a quick explanation of the name of the hurley sloan symposium, it honors curtis b hurley, in arkansas newspaper editor who lent a promising journalist $400 in order to attend the missouri school of journalism. so that's went7 able further in those days.
a successfulme publisher, he and his wife decided to endow a chair which i hold at the journalism school and to name it not for himself before his mentor, curtis hurley. this is the seventh symposium i have produced here at the press club and i am to be doing so this year in partnership with the missouri school of law and the center for media ethics and law. that was created by price sloan, a graduate of the school and his wife. focuses on free speech, free press, media ethics and practice, and the first amendment. mr. sloan is the executive vice president at toronto dominion bank and has had an extensive banking.
he and his wife are with us and i would like them to stand and be recognized. [applause] and now, i would like to invite andrea edney the 111th president of the national press club to welcome you. >> thank you, barbara. buckham everyone. good morning. i am so happy to have you here at the national press club, the world's leading professional organization for journalists. in addition to being the president of the national press club, i am an editor at bloomberg news. we are so very happy to see you here for this event today. the conversation about fake news and fact checking, fairness and objectivity is incredibly important, especially in this
environment where the press finds itself constantly under attack. would like to extend a huge thanks to barbara cochran herein addition to being the hurley chair is also the national press club journalism institute president. i would like to thank the institutes executive director, they both worked tirelessly to pull this event together today. we are very excited that the journalism institute is working with the missouri school of missouri school of law and the reynolds journalism institute to discuss this topic which goes to the very heart of what we as journalists do and it goes to our credibility. thank you everyone for being here today. thank you. [applause]
>> thank you, we are so delighted to be here. it is a special place and this is a great pleasure. now i would like to call on randy picht, the executive director of the journalism institute to tell you about some of their exciting work in the area of press credibility and freedom. randy: thank you. rji is going to be celebrating its 10th anniversary in the fall and it was started in 2008 with a very simple mission, is to make sure that journalism has a long and bright future. that with various projects , we had a fellowship program
will be invite folks from the industry to come in with innovative ideas and help them get them accomplished, creating tools and strategies for the industry. we leverage the great students at the university of missouri and professors to come up with collaborative efforts with the industry. we do research, we have been known to invest in a journalism startups. we try to do whatever we can to help journalism get better. topics thatust are we often think about at the institute. especially now. let me say one thing about the institute, especially in this town, it means think tank and what we like to think of ourselves at rji is a think and do tank and so we emphasize the doing as much as possible.
we're talking about truth and trust, it is still kind of hard that we andd everybody in it so much. i understand that so many things in journalism that we took for granted have been and are being facts and the trustworthiness, you cannot get more fundamental than that. you cannot get more important than that. ourselvesere we find and i like to think that in the end, the efforts to be more transparent, to defend the value new ways to find engage our audiences is going to be a net positive for journalism and make us better. at rji it has led to a terrific
initiative called trusting news.org which is in some journalism build trust. we work with 30 newsrooms around the country, newspapers, tv stations and some nonprofits as well. with them, we have conducted over 400 experiments using facebook, which is where the audiences right now, to address trust and engagement. we have great anecdotal results from that and we will be doing some rigorous academic research to go with his results. a sign of the times in terms of the topic of trust in journalism, yesterday nieman lab , the website that tracks the news industry and is our
outstry publication came with a story that said, here is your guide to all the different trustit -- it's -- initiatives going on now and they had a scorecard of who's and this indication of how much we're thinking about it and also a shameless plug, i was happy that we were listed first. side, in our futures lab, we are creating a fact checking tool for any newsroom. fact checking came on the scene and some websites started doing some bigen publications started doing it.
it seems like this is going to be a part of journalism going forward, having some kind of tool for readers to use. we want to make that tool that any news organization can plug-in to their workflow and offer that to readers. will bek, rji announcing its newest class of fellows, the fellowship program we have some folks that come and spend two semesters with us, we can two flavors where folks stay where they are and keep their jobs and work on a project basis. everybody that is interested in applying that we are the country. fellows and nine some of those projects are going to touch on truth and trust so you might want to keep an eye
out on some of those. delighted to help bring this event to you from rji and we are eager to get the insights about the first amendment from our panel howrneys and later, washington journalists are adjusting to the new landscape which i think it is fair to say is like no other landscape right now. thank you very much and enjoy the festivities. [applause] barbara: thank you. i think there are a lot of people who will be very interested in that fact checking tool when it is built and some people may be in this room interested in the fellowship. i hope you will hear from some
of our viewers and listeners. we will have a question. -- we will have a question period at the end of each panel. you will get to ask her questions. for those watching for following us on facebook, you can submit questions. students assigned to watch the facebook live feed and if you have a question, they will pass it along and we will see if we can get your question answered. now it is my pleasure to turn things over to lyrissa lidsky, she is in her first year as dean of the university of missouri school of law, having come from the university of florida. she is a renowned first amendment scholar who has published case books and articles about press freedom and legal issues in social media. you can read more about her compliments and your printed program which i hope you picked up on your way into the room. please welcome lyrissa lidsky
and her panel. [applause] thank you also much for coming this morning. a better never been time to be discussing media , and the rolelaw of the press in our democracy. i would submit that there are no better people to discuss this with the need people we have .ssembled here on the dais i'm going to introduce them briefly. their extended bios are in their program and i encourage you to look at those but i do not want to take away from our time to have an interactive discussion about these issues. to my far right at least geographically, -- [laughter] is ronnell anderson jones from the university of
utah. she formally clerked for u.s. supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. next to her is famed media , next toarles tobin him is mary-rose papandrea from the university of north carolina school of law, she clerked for david souter, on my left is amy gajda from tulane university. she has had a career as an award-winning broadcast and print journalist. , at to her is kurt a. wimmer famed media and first amendment and cybers ecurity attorney. next to him is sonja r. west from the university of georgia. she clerked for u.s. supreme court justice who has been in
the news of it this past week. let's kick it off. we do not have much time and this is going to be a great conversation. let's kick off with ronnell. pullspew research lls revealed that people are skeptical about the role that the media plays in our democracy. even more surprising was that 89% of democrats believe the press are an important watchdog but only 42% of republicans do. i am going to kick it off with you and ask what explains this discrepancy and what if anything can be news media deal to rebuild public trust and candy law play a role? ofnell: i think this is one if not the most important
political questions of our time. it is no exaggeration to suggest that press freedom ought to be thought of on par with other civil liberties that we're thinking about and defending as a people. a huge piece of what is happening here is that our political world and therefore our media world has become largely defined on the basis of enemy status, insider outsider status in ways that are very dangerous. there is an interesting piece in the new york times summarizing political science scholarship on this question about how clear it has become that in the last decade or so, american politics have come to be defined not on the basis of who i am with the two i am against. if that enemy nature of our political scheme is driving everything, it has incredible consequences for us as a people
and for our democracy and for the role of the press. it means that if you vote on the basis of voting against the person you hate, voting against he, there you loat is very little accountability once your candidate is chosen because you did not vote on the basis of hoping for something but on the basis of sharing a loathing. we have seen the trump campaign was incredibly successful at characterizing one of the enemies as the press. that has large-scale ramifications. it is one thing to suggest that is theitical opponent enemy but to suggest that a democratic institution is the enemy, it is not just this democratic institution. this institution is housed with others, the intelligence community and immigrants and
people across the southern border and people of certain religions and those consequences of enemy construction of the press can be significant. we have seen in the past in the political arc of history that when we characterize institutions as the enemy and are successful in convincing people that they are outsiders rather than helpful insiders, the very next step is the removal of individual liberties. lots of people will have ideas about the role of the law in pushing back against this. one major role that the law can have is that the law works in tandem with larger social norms. we send signals about what is valuable, what rights we defend, continue to bens central to our democracy. may end up playing
a significant role in the years of -- once this tough talk about the press as enemies makes its way into think weallenges, i are going to have to rely on the courts to push back against that notion and described them as they have described them in the past as important democratic institutions. huck, you have spent your career defending the press. what made the press is vulnerable to these kinds of attacks as an enemy, what was the weakness that made them vulnerable to those attacks and what can be done about that? are you as worried as ronnell about that permeating into actual legal principles? chuck: thank you for the question. what we have seen is a bit of a ofyering up of the process
disseminating the news from capitol hill and the white house. on the other side, a bit of a lawyering up on the part of the various press outlets dealing with the issue. there is an interesting parallel between the process of news reporting and the dissemination of information and what we do in the court system. the court system is based on adversarial process. you have two sets of lawyers duty-bound to represent their clients, the present what we might call alternative facts from each other to courts and in that clash of ideas, the very nature of the adversarial system is to prevent -- present different opinions, different perspectives, different facts in the most favorable way to your client and let a factfinder sort of those things out. that is not in theory much unlike the marketplace of ideas which underpins modern
journalism and which has been written about in the law. marketplace of ideas, people, with different ideas, you have a clash of ideas and out of that, people can make their own decisions. you can find your own facts as news consumers and you can make your own decisions on where to vote, where to send your children to school and on. the major difference has come out and it remains to a certain extent, lawyers are bound by rules. we are bound by the rules of ethics, we cannot lie, we cannot present known allies to courts and factfinders and we are by the rules of civility. inyou get out of line advocating to a court, you will be punished. we are under oath and required in ourivilized
regulation. we have seen a more lawyer like approach from the news disseminators, from the white house is. i would argue it did not start with president trump. nixon wsident agnew and ere advocating a certain point of view about the war and the press, and became very adversarial. we saw that through the second bush administration, to a certain extent the obama administration. hastrump administration taken it to a new level. they are not bound by the same rules of civility. they are not bound by the ethical rules we lawyers are bound by. you have the same skill set, the same style brought to public debate, but you don't have the same rules apply. what can the press do?
double down on their efforts, reinvest in the news product and focused on investigative journalism, on niche journalism and new ways to bring news to people. continue to stand firm and push back against this whole wave of untruth we are seeing. don't relinquish. continue to come to the marketplace of ideas with a very tough commitment. i would argue, maintained your civility. -- maintain your civility. rosen, you focus on the role of social media. doesn't social media undermine the notion of the marketplace of ideas, that the truth will
ultimately emerge from a multitude of voices? has social media increased theyization, and are undermining the ideal of the marketplace of ideas? >> there are wonderful things about social media. i just want to start with the positives. it brings us together. i can stay in touch with my fellow panelists, see pictures of babies and kittens and so on. that is the good part. thae bad part is people are polarizing. i don't think that is a newsflash for anyone in this room. e silo ine mor themselves. -- siloing themselves. they are not listening to the other side. they are not engaging in the same marketplace of ideas where they are confronting those with views different from theirs. if they don't like something
someone is saying on their unfriendfeed, they may them. we may be talking about a certain incident. >> [laughter] >> ronnell was a victim. mary-rose: there has been social science research to show people have heuristic biases. when they confront things contrary to their views, they discount them and don't give them any credence whatsoever. when they see things that support their pre-existing views, they support them. social media was an important role in the increasing polarization of our society. it is reflecting of what is happening in the political world, but it is exasperating the problem. one thing about social media, a lot of people are getting their news from social media instead of going -- getting their
subscription in the morning or watching the 6:00 p.m. broadcast. it is a lot of noise. studies show people are more likely to credit the friend who posts the news rather than the underlying creator of the content. people aren't focusing on who is the actual creator to determine the credibility. this undermines press institutions as well. those are my two main points. >> should the law get involved? mary-rose: something to piggyback on something ronnell wasn't suggesting in her comments -- was suggesting in her comments, the law has a role, but i think it is up to the platforms to come up with tools to perhaps make people see
things they do not like. i do not know if there are any measures that are particularly successful yet. the other measure would be education. the future lies in our children, so educate them on how to be literate and how to tell what is true and not true. that is a long-term process. we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to educate people on how to consume information. >> on of the themes of this panel is an interaction between legal principles and social norms. we think of the first amendment having a scope set in stone for all time, but even within principles, how you interpret them in individual cases is influenced by things like credibility of the press and social norms. our judges are human beings, and
these issues bleed into their interpretation of the rules. amy is an expert on it media ethics. she had extensive experience as a reporter before starting her career as a legal academic. are media ethics part of the solution to keeping our first amendment strong? amy: one of the problems is how we define the press and journalists. today we have the platform for publishing. in effect, we all are journalists. key issue however is -- the issue however is if we want to protect individual privacy in some way, there has to be some put on what is
appropriate information to be published. put on wh isfficulties now in defining what is newsworthy. that is a word we use in tort law in the united states. newsworthy information is protected, is and non-newsworthy information is not, as long as it is privacy invading. that is a clash course are dealing with right now. -- courts are dealing with right now. when someone publishes a sonogram of two fetuses, is that beyond the bounds of what is newsworthy? when someone publishes a medical chart from a hospital, is that information beyond the bounds of what is newsworthy? in both examples, the courts decided the answer was yes, and drew a newsworthiness boundary
protecting individual privacy over a publication's decision to publish something. when an interesting time started to play a certain role in those questions. one other quick example -- there is a court that decided a case a couple years ago against startey a certain role in those questions. nbc "to catch a predator." in that decision, the court looked at code of ethics and used that ethics code against the journalist. that is a very dangerous situation. ethically, journalists are bound to abide by those code provisions, and yet they are very flexible, and meant to be very flexible, because journalism has to be flexible in coverage at times. i think it is a very interesting ethics, social media,
the definition for journalism and the press is coming together in important ways. havecs, sociallyrissa: kurt, yu represented a number of traditional media clients and what we may think of as new media clients. are ethics a sword or the shield in litigation? kurt: that is a great question. the issues you mention of who is a journalist predominate. who should be bound by media ethics? whotraditional media believes te media, somehow superior or different? we have these platforms that make it look as if everyone is equal, which is problematic in many ways. you can create something called the denver journal, which isn't a newspaper record in denver, but some people might believe it is,a nd make it look online
exactly like the denver post, and have the credibility enhancing functions of the press. that does not mean it is actually journalism. chuck will remember we spent many years trying to pass a privilege for journalists to make confidential sources in congress. the day seems to part of -- the part of that was deciding who was a journalist and who is bound by the rules of the press. that is the issue of the day here. >> who is the primary sponsor in the house of representatives in the early 2000's? >> we bassed that bi -- passed that bill through the house of representatives thanks to the vice president.
lyrissa: you mention we could all be considered journalists what that means. are we all journalists now? >> as the teacher, the best year or so is this has been a great teaching opportunity about the constitution and how it works. one of the lessons is, as far as the constitution is concerned, journalists have far fewer protections than most people think. all throughout the 60's, 70's, the court loved to talk about how great the press was, but when it came to the actual holding of the case, the court would say the press is like everyone else, we can't give them any special rights, because we would have to give them to
everybody and terrible things would happen. what we are seeing across the in the trump administration is the stress testing of our constitution. whether it is excluding people from press conferences, or telling the people permits of departmentsthe pr of agencies -- or not respecti ng the work of the press, even if privately they are doing things that might make us angry. this week we got a lot of attention beyond that, which is trying to employ powers of the federal government to silence or doing for saying things the president doesn't like, whether it is higher postal rates, whether it's telling the fcc they should not investigate their broadcast having ther
department of justice interfere with a merger that is explicitly tied to the sale of cnn. the answer as far as the constitution is concerned, we don't have the law there. there is unique interest of the press. for a long time we could get by lumping everyone together. that is changing for all the reasons just discussed. the first amendment has a limit on how it is going to help. legislatively there is more help. we have statutes and other types of protections and laws that give the press protection, that aren't afraid of trying, albeit trying tod way, but do the important work of the press and giving them the rights they need to do their job. those needs are different than what we see with these other bople putting things up on
logs. for now, that is where we will have to focus our attention, on legislative protections, where we can find them and get them. lyrissa: let's turn to discuss fakeness. fake news as a problem in that it has a little bit of instability in what counts as fake news. it has been invariably used to trueplied to disinformation, false news presented as true, advised -- biased news, news with which one disagrees, or news that is not newsworthy, true what ronnell has referred to as fake newsworthiness. >> [laughter] lyrissa: what, if anything, should the law do about fake new s?
things i have been particularly interested in is called the communications decency act, section 230. this is a law that suggests that websites are not liable for information published on them by others, so by outsiders. this is one of the reasons why we have this proliferation of websites that exist with no other purpose but to perhaps spread false information or to inflict emotional harm. this is a federal statute that protects those websites from liability for information published by others. for the longest time, we have embraced this. certainly we have embraced it if represent media and we are
represent media and we are pro-press, because for example we don't want the new york times information onr its website posted by a commentor. but it has enabled fake news sites to exist. it has enabled websites that cause emotional distress to others to exist. when we think about protections of media, i wonder how many times when people that think media has too much protection actually brings under the umbrella of media those websites, along information on its with reality television, along with mainstream media. my sense is the cda might be tweaked to be more protective of mainstream media and also individuals. >> one thing you said that i thought was interesting was the perception of media, which circles back to the question about the pew study. i think people have an opinion of media that is formed by
whatever media they are thinking about at the moment. when someone is thinking cnn, my local television station, info wars, breitbart, they may have an opinion based on what they think media is. i think it is important to be more granular about how people perceive different types of media. i agree section 230 has had an enormous impact on the internet. sites like facebook and others would not be able to exist without section 230, which is what the first amendment of the digital world. i think it is important. i think it is important to remember it is only to protect the website that publishes information from third-party. it doesn't protect the third-party. , iare seeking people say won't sue the platform, but i can find someone who published this. if it is someone creating a
conspiracy about my, neighborhod pizza joint housing a pedophile ring in the basement, which doesn't even have a basement -- maybe there is a lawsuit there before the armed gunmen charges based onneighborhood an fake news solely out of speculation. i have never been for suing out thoseel, fbut for masquerading as news outlets, it is time to be more aggressive. f websites -- lyrissa: and websites that exist to disseminate that information, knowing that posts will be defending or otherwise. -- be defaming or otherwise. >> even if you took away section 230, what can the platforms be sued for? it could be defamation, the
could be invasion of privacy. in some cases, there would be exposure, but the phenomena we are talking about is where a lot of the fake news does not fall in that -- there is no defamation, no infliction of emotional distress, it is just false information. right nowright now the first amt protects false speech, unless there is some other element to it -- fraud -- there are other types of false speech not protected under the first amendment. advocate wewould should not protect falls speech. -- false spech. i would have a hard time with the government deciding truth and falsity. i think it could decide in certain cases, but much more narrow than what our nation is
facing. >> we are living in the upside black -- going to the other interpretation of what fake news means, when you just don't like it, but it also has this interpretation where it is inaccurate. there was an instance in colorado where a politician called the local paper fake and they considered suing for defamation. you have defamed our newspaper our financial harm, whatever definition of fake news he meant. i practiced and they media law a little bit. newspapers aren't defama tion plaintiffs. [laughter] that is just kind of a rule. >> that case also illustrates
something i've talked about a lot -- it is relatively easy to sue for defamation. you have seen a great number of defamation suits like the stormy daniels case, but it is hard to win a defamation suit. sometimes people make a public pronouncement that they are aggrieved. >> repealing section 230 -- i'm concerned about chilling speech. people might be able to ultimately win in these lawsuits, but there are real costs that come come from a motion to dismiss. it is very expensive, even if in the end you would win. >> which makes the case for laws that shift the fees to the losing plaintiff in the defamation case, if we can prove
it was meant to chill the person's speech. it takes away the sting of the extensive legal fees. going back to something mary-rose was talking about, not wanting a court to make a decision about real and fake news. i would be leery of a court deciding who and who is not a journalist. kurt and i spent hours with congresspeople and their staff trying to threat that needle. 2009,as back in 2005 to when some of the now established internet players in journalism, which all of us would agree are legitimate journalists, were still emerging. the bona fide had not been established. there was a case in florida that rose out of the trump
feednistration where buzz published the dossier about president trump and the russian involvement and all that. buzzvic oligarch had sued feed in florida. his claim is progressing through the florida courts. a judge had to the side, -- had to decide, is buzzfeed really journalism? i think it is unquestionable they have established they are journalists. we got away from the government making these licensing decisions. >> there was a case where a teenager to decide a who was posting things on the
internet from his parent's basement teenager who was in fact a journalist. how do we define newsworthiness in a way that you are privacy if going to you are going to embrace everyone as a journalist? doesn't that end all protections, including shield laws for buzzfeed and others, more mainstream accepted journalists? >> on the use of the term fake news, i argue strongly we would society, inf as a terms of our laws for buzzfeed educational r- one powerful thing we could do to bifurcate that term. it has plainly been conscripted to mean something different than either of the words mean independently. when you look up the word news and you look up the word to bif. it has plainly been conscripted to fake --
we are talking about fabricating information that appears to be of public concern. it is used now as often or more often as a sort of clapback against coverage that a political party or particularly covered individual dislikes. it is the constant retort in trump's tweets of coverage of him. we would do well to bifurcate the principles, to describe what our beef is with what is happening here. we in fact have a major constitutional crisis that centers over one kind of fake news, which is there are bots in russia creating information that is not accurate and flooding our media airwaves -- facebook and twitter and elsewhere -- with information that is patently false and designed to manipulate its reader in ways that are
harmful. it itself is a constitutional crisis. equal, different constitutional crisis happening about the other kind of fake news, which is leading up until recently, all of the historical investigations i have done about past president tensions with the press in the past show whatever wasn'tisted, there constitutional expectation of counter speech. that is, if the press of any variety engaged wasn't in publication on a matter and the president took issue with it -- the executive branch thought there was something problematic about -- it was not true or biased there was an expectation that the president would use his platform -- if there is anyone in the in publication world that is better
situated to have a podium where he clarifies information that is in some way biased, it is the presidency of the united states. what we then see is this new trend of the president not us counter information, not contributing to the marketplace of ideas, but againstpushing back coverage and labeling it fake news. that is harmful to a democracy to have no against coverage executive counter speech. what i want to know as a citizen -- you labeled that piece of information fake news. is that because you yourself possess information about a factual error about it? tell me about that error. is it because you think the vent mediathe bent of that
outlet is delivered in an unfair outlet is delivered in an unfair or partisan way? tell me that, but term is problematic, because it leaves informedizens less more than more informed. it has affected speech in ways that are problematic in terms of holding together of the polity. lyrissa: we are running out of time, but i want to ask my two practicing lawyers a last question. since the trump administration begin, how has your practice in defending journalists and journalism changed, if it has? are you seeing different kinds of cases that you have seen before? >> i will start with the positive. there has been a reinvestment in foia, freedom of information litigation. we have eight or 10 cases since president trump has come in. >> just to clarify, that is
where you are asking the government to produce documents it has control of. there are state and federal statutes mandating access to this information. toand newsrooms don't have spend just when you get sued, you have to hire a lawyer. newsrooms realized it is an absolute necessity. >> i completely agree. i think it is a way to bounce back against the fake news claim by obtaining documents that were otherwise closed to you. there is a lot more effort in getting access to information, iso because that information disappearing from the public record now, and there's an effort to preserve and find it. journalismestigative needs to show what is going on. i think it has been a reinvigoration in some ways. are you all
>> that is an interesting question about media bias and t of the of the economics media and how they have gotten us to a place where the media has taken on very polarized roles on both sides. is the role of the law in addressing those kind of factors? >> i will answer part of your question. i think the public really doesn't understand what journalism means. the fact that journalists must follow ethics codes. when you read something in the new york times, you can bet it has been fact checked, and there are editors eyes, along with
journalist eyes. i think journalism can do a better job of explaining the job it does so the public understands that there are restrictions on journalists, and they lose their jobs if they don't abide by certain ethics codes or otherwise. has the ability to effectuate those ethics codes in part been undermined? we see the hollowing out of newsrooms. the market forces simply don't have as many experience recorders -- experienced reporters. we don't have experienced editors because of the pressure to compete with the timeline of social media. preserve thelists ethics in a marketplace that doesn't seem to value them? >> i think through education. ago, buta long time the journalists i have spoken with, everyone of them abides by ethics codes and does their
best, even from tweaking from the scene to get -- tweeting from the scene to get the information right. news value versus invasion of privacy, etc.. peoplee everyday understood that, the better off we would be, in regard to trusting at least certain media outlets. >> the supreme court case from the 1970's, where the court upheld editorial discretion, they talked about this idea of checking the press if the government can't. the answers were journalistic ethics and the audience, the --dership will reward them those who are doing good work of the press. i think we have seen the second one become challenged. it has become far more confusing and there is much more going on
then turning on your local news or getting your newspaper. i think journalistic efforts can play a role. i have faith that court could make distinctions between who are the speakers doing the constitutionally assigned job of the press, which is checking the government and informing the people, that alone would exclude a lot of the entities we are talking about. they could recognize them solely for the purpose of giving them additional rights to the rights we all share, and our speech rights, and recognize press rates. there is a second clause in the first amendment, the court doesn't really like to recognize that. that could include things in terms of protection of sources and access to laces or information that currently nobody gets. as long as they police for content bias, speaker buys, which courts are asked to do and are skilled at doing, they could
recognize there simply are speakers who are doing the work of the public, on behalf of the public. that doesn't count for everything and everybody. that could get us a great deal of the way. >> i'm not sure how that would solve the problem. no one doubts the new york times is press. the problem is there are people who don't trust them because they think they are biased. an entity like the new york times -- it may help in a more atmospheric way, if we start giving these kind of entities in it positioned, it may help in a direct way. i don't think it would solve this big problem where people don't trust entities like the new york times. it is a pr disaster, in many ways it has benefited from the current climate. it has more subscribers than others. if it wants to attract other
liberals,ot just the but appeal to a lot of america, it will have to do work to prove it is trustworthy and not biased. >> one of the positive developments the media industry has come out with his transparency, the rise of professional media writers about the media, covering the media, which has become part of our popular culture. whohave professionals actually will tell you and will make it their job when fake news comes out, when there is a big issue, finding out who those people are and reporting on them to the extent that the information to be had. it is more difficult when it is a bought factory somewhere and it can get access to that information. that has been a very helpful development. it was entirely on the part of
the media deciding they need to do that. >> we got a really good question coming from facebook. the question is "i'm curious, given the section 230 of the communications decency act, whether they have been following the progress of the fight online sex trafficking act office through congress, which would amend the communications decency -- to allow certain kinds of the purveyors of certain kinds of ads, particularly aimed at sex trafficking, to be sued, does the panelist oppose any and all changes, or is this bill a step in the right direction." >> i think it would be amended in a way that would protect mainstream media, journalism, and also carve out those
websites designed to inflict emotional harm to defame. >> the revenge foreign websites exist because of cba section 230. about howan article the platforms abandoned their opposition to this long recently in light of the facebook -cambridge analytical disaster. they didn't want to be dealing with we support sex trafficking, which isn't what the opposition of this bill is about, but who wants to be associated with a sex trafficking, or opposing a law that would enable it to make it easier to go after sex traffickers? is bigger concern for me that i worry this isn't the end. we can carve out sex trafficking are notte that, but we
going to do much more debating because it becomes law very soon. as soon as you do these carveouts, it could keep going. fear of the chilling effect. imagine it you run a platform and are exposed to a liability for everything a certain party post on your website. you are going to take it down. it is going to be really hard for you to do otherwise. how do you decide whether something is defamatory and actionable? there are a lot of negative things you can say about somebody, that they don't like, be true.y how do you determine what millions of people are posting, whether it is true or not? weconcern is i understand can point to certain kinds of things that are bad, sex but i am concerned if we repeal section 230 and the
whole or keep chipping away, we will suffer the robust marketplace. >> courts are chipping away at it right now, even though we don't have that enacted into law. i think it is unfortunate that this legislation has passed it. it gets advertising for sex trafficking. which is one reason why these bills passed. no one is in favor of sex trafficking. need -- thingsk need to be done in the law to issue this question. the disappointed me was chip away from section 230, that could be the tip of the sword. exceptionshey make for everything, the list becomes long.
the problem is the upstream effect of that is it is requiring websites to monitor. once you say we have to monitor this, it is more likely they will just stop taking any content that discusses anything that may have certain keywords that may be in a sex trafficking at. there is a whole array that has appeared from public comments because people are going to be afraid of liability. some of those discussions might have beneficial social effects for a lot of different subcultures or people. it is unfortunate, i couldn't agree more, in terms of the effect of section 230. we're the only country in the world that has section 230. if youlook at europe, send a takedown request of a website and the website doesn't take the content down, the website is treated as the publisher and can sue for liability under defamation law
in europe. the courts haven't been much of a constraint on that. >> who uses that? the powerful people who are commented about in the media that are the biggest users of the right to be forgotten and the right of takedown and europe. we would see the same phenomena if we see a notice of takedown type regime. >> another question? >> is the clarissa asked a question at the beginning, what has changed in the environment that has allowed the current traditional press to come under such attack. it has effectively been done. what has changed?
the press has created something that is allotted to be subject to this. i don't know the press itself is responsible for the second and more money is being poor into playing out -- poured into planed out. technology is being used more effectively. president obama was effective at using the internet, president trump is taking it to a new level with twitter. changed is the use of the technology and the lawyering up of the dissemination of information. i don't know that the press has done anything other than what it hold an doing, trying to mirror up to power and hold people accountable for their past, for their false the other, positions,
side is getting more effective at fighting back. >> we do need to make sure we understand this didn't happen in a vacuum and not in the last year. this has been part of a multi-decade campaign to go after all sorts of institutions that were previously seen as the conveyors of something approaching objective truth, scientists, academics, the press, and we are even seeing it extended to the courts and law enforcement agencies, the fact checking industry has been a target. ofis really about a goal trying to put doubt into what exactly you can trust is fact or not fact. >> i think the point is well taken that there have been and contente nature of the media in recent decades that have exacerbated the problem. the budgets they used to have no
longer exist. the technological wave happens, they take the money they can throw at some of the great things they need to do. they don't -- it is a waning industry. we now have this term legacy media that is talking about these dinosaurs that once existed, but it plays a truly central role in our democracy. i think we can trace some of this back to the advent of cable news. all 24 hoursll in with something to say. you have to bring on people who are on a split screen and start yelling at each other for 23 of those hours. if you compare that to stoic walter cronkite, who is saying to you that he offered -- he talked to both sides. he routinely, at the height of
the glory days of press power, but also press freedom, he was routinely poling in gallup poll's as the most trusted person on the planet. he was outranking the pope rated his capacity for credibility and trustworthiness, and honesty, part of what we have seen in this split of cable news was a big piece of the partisan as asian of the press, where you are getting the full marketplace of ideas, but from two different sources. whether you would go to them or not is an open question. your capacity to look at the other source and say they are on not offering me the full package, that has become true. it is not the only era in american journalism that has been true. the nonpartisan nature of the press has changed over time. to the extent of someone who came of age in the 1960's or 70's and observed the press of
today would be different. it may be alarming to them if they are counting on uncle getting fox it and news and msnbc. they might be thinking they were getting something that was not just different in degree, but different in kind. rooms whenus were in the internet was starting to bubble up. trying to decide how to capitalize and use it. the one thing you kept hearing was this is great, people will have more choices as to what they want to pay attention to, whether it is shopping, news, local entertainment, local, local, freedom of choice. it is invariable, inevitable, and perhaps not a bad result that there are a lot of different voices. what we don't have -- what we
some of those have infused the political process, the electoral system, i would argue there are remedies if you can find them. there are remedies to that other than the journalists coming back on the first amendment. from a sociological standpoint, this is what we wanted one we created the internet, all of these different choices. >> we accomplished the goal, now we have to live with the consequences. have been thinking about how the press feels with making the stakes. -- there have always been mistakes. it is going to happen and we need to protect the ones that are intentionally made. i think we have high-profile recording -- reporting.
maybe it is because the way these corrections are done. the media may be trying to resurrect itself and say we are committed to truth, so we are going to sell financially and tell you everything we did wrong. overall, that is positive, but it provides room for critics. critics point to these kinds of incidents as evidence that they are biased. i wonder if there is a way to corrections are filtered through -- i don't want to say this is the reason, but you have all made such amazing points. >> we saw that at the fake news awards, it ended up being these pieces of where the press corrects themselves and the rush investigation. scientist recently
published a paper finding that the tendency to actually correct themselves actually makes the public view the press more skeptically than these other organizations that do not correct themselves. it can have this unintended backlash. >> i have a question off the internet. ads, what do the panelists think about the honest ads act, which is designed for thernet disclosure and audience can evaluate what the impotence behind those as is and who is funding it. you have opinions on the? a good effort, as long as it looking at a local playing field. is an effort to say let's
have more seats rather than less beach. i thought about constitutionally how it fits with the online world. if it were challenged, it will be an interesting question. sense,ort certainly make to say we are going to have more disclosure. that is a nice alternative to saying let's stop this from happening, let's center this speech. isthe problem you run into political speech point advertising and the balance between disclosure versus the right to support calls for a candidate without fear of retribution. those in campaign finance issues and disclosure in advertising, you have to balance out the issue.
[inaudible] >> the problem with the fairness doctrine with perspective, it puts you in the position of being forced to undertake speech. is a broadcasting regulation, it required broadcasters to cover issues of public importance. the second was if you did cover , you had to provide access to your airwaves for the other side to discuss that. it was the basis for a lot of campaigns, like the campaign that ultimately led to cigarette advertising being taken off of the air, starting with the
fairness doctrine campaign that said every time you run a cigarette at, which is essentially a controversial issue, you have to air an anti-smoking at rated --. it was broadcasting media because of the so-called limited person status, broadcast licenses, because they have a license from the government. the reason it doesn't make sense in the current environment is because there is so much adversary -- adversity. i would think it would be a nightmare to try to bring it back. that is just my opinion. >> when broadcast license comes up for renewal, is start ly issues werefair covered, but you have to have a government official looking at how fairly issues are coveredf
and with that determination be handed in the current environment? >> that's the other thing to remember when you are thinking about government issued broadcast licenses. president's and came after the washington post using the broadcast licenses, which were challenged by these public interest groups. the whole issue of how regulation works is dicey. >> one second. walter cronkite seemed to base his entire program on the fairness doctrine and became the most trusted person in the world. >> it is one thing for a person to take on that ideal and try to effectuate the idea through the media ethics, the media
standards, and reinforce it in other journalists through those ethics and standards, it is the governmentve scrutinizing it. >> showing an era in which the sum total to which the press was exposed was three television stations and a daily newspaper in our community. when that you think about the change of the media landscape in terms of contribution to the marketplace of ideas and sources of press coverage, it is a trickle compared to this firehose. into really different directions, in terms of the norms. in 1974, the waning days of the nixon era, the u.s. supreme court rendered its on the miami herald. it was a statue in florida that was a rate statute that and -- a
newspaper took an editorial against a candidate. in opposite candidate had a right to let newspaper running its opinion. the supreme court struck the statue and said for better or worse, what goes into the content of the newspaper is for journalists to decide, one can have the courts or the congress and force that -- enforce that. if you buy into the principal and believe that, there is no justification for a fahnestock and under the constitution. >> we have time for one more quick question. >> so far you have been focused on the printed word and the government. just killwoman who herself and others at youtube
was speaking about another generation that uses video with corporate control. i wondered if it is too soon to start talking at that level, the next generation, what is coming at us all. as much change as there has been from the 70's. >> i don't think it is too soon, because of how many young people are going first to social media to the news, including sites like youtube. i don't think it is too soon. part of soanya's work has alluded to what those platforms don't have the same set of journalistic standards or norms. role thatplay the traditionally has been played by legacy media. >> one more question.
a i'm managing editor polygraph in foes, fact check of international disinformation. what was said a few minutes ago peak my interest. s, andentified russian bot trolls who are much more active. as a constitutional crisis, i think that is the term used. if that is indeed the case, what anything, since most of us are defenders of the first amendment, is there any remedy for the either in the law or journalistically? what would you say? mary rose tapped into notions of the limitation of the
law solving this problem. we see, we have seen in the last couple of weeks som suggestion that they may be considering rising to the occasion in thinking about the way the platforms are being used and the way they are serving and perpetuating harmful information. i agree with everybody on the panel who has suggested that public information campaign seems to be so central to what we are doing. i wake up almost every morning thinking that what we should do is make a difference in the world in which i live, abandon my career as a legal scholar and launch a large-scale campaign to visit middle schools and high people aboutalk to media consumption and their capacity to tell truth from falsehood and think it carefully
about the source of information. identify when i am being spoken to by a troll. i am not sure my daughters seventh-grade classmates can do so. i think that is a really important aspect of the inter-workings of constitutional -- i'm not talking about constitutional doctrine, i'm talking about the norms of the way we speak to each other in a democracy and the ways we filter information and disinformation. it seems to me like it is going to be critical that we stop to referring to things as fake news and, with more accurate terms for what those things are. we can also equip our citizenry, and the next generation of our citizenry, with the tools they need to know who are trusted filters of information, and who are providers so they can operate appropriately. with that, we have to wrap up
and we are going to go to break. i hope you join us back for our next panel. thank you. >> let's give them a round of applause again. [applause] taking notes fast intricacy, because a lot of the points raised will be very good questions for the journalists we have now. i also want to welcome the dean of the missouri schools
journalism, who joins us for the rest of the day, david kirby us. ofis leading the process rethinking how we train journalists to go into today's marketplace. they will hear more from him about that during the luncheon. right now, please stand and let us recognize you. [applause] now, i'm going to introduce our speaker. she will recognize them by their byline or television appearances. you have their biographies in your program. the introductions will be short and sweet. that the granton of them was not able to join us because of a family matter. chris has switched through because he also publishes a blog created we are
happy to have him join us. to my right and you're left is peter baker, the chief white house correspondent of the new york times. seniorargaret talev, white house correspondent for bloomberg news and president of the white house correspondents association. next to margaret is major garrett, chief white house correspondent and cbs news, host of the podcast of the takeout. i should also say, a proud graduate of the mid-missouri -- missouri school of journalism. [applause] page,my left is clarence the political allies -- pulitzer prize winning tribune. and an analyst on the mclaughlin group. editor ofris buskirk, american greatness, who has written commentary for the washington post and has been
interviewed regularly on npr, pbs, and cnn. gold, whoris is jaras covers media and politics. last, and certainly not least, is dan false, the chief correspondent of the washington post. welcome them to the panel. [applause] >> is journalists who have years of experience and are here to tell us what it is really like to report on washington today. we will have time for questions at the end and on facebook life. last year's early symposium we
gathered a similar group of journalists who seemed to be shocked with the changes that came with the trump administration. ofre were fears to the loss access, climbdown of information lurking in the background, threats of investigations and defamation lawsuits. on top of that, the president declared the news media to be the enemies of the people who didn't have a country's best interest at heart. i want to find out one year , what the situation is like, how people are seeing things, and how it has evolved for those covering the ground every day. i want to begin with margaret, the president of the white house correspondents association. you made a little news this morning. bystanders of a news event.
the president announced on our radio program that he does not intend to attend this year's dinner. while i was on the phone discussing how we would roll out -- there isn something different about the administration's posture. the white house telling us that the president isn't comfortable, he will encourage his cabinet, his advisers, to attend the dinner, which is a celebration of the first amendment. sarah sanders will join us in is aead table, which traditional position for a white house press secretary.
although the radio message -- the message underscoring it is one of participation this year, that is a good thing. >> let's go to you. you have covered a number of administrations. days,ribed those early elizabeth was here last year to talk about what was going on. how has evolved for you and your colleagues? >> there is the beginning of this rhetoric of hostility, enemy of the people. good friend dan's paper was in the crosshairs this last week.
in the white house itself, in the bracing room -- in the briefing room, it settled down from the early days, we were not sure if we were going to be kicked out of the building, whether we would have briefings, whether they would be televised. that kind of thing has settled down. that confrontation has now andved into regular rhythm it doesn't mean we don't have our issues, obviously we do. but in terms of day in and day it has been settled into a regular routine. >> what is it like for you? you have covered past administrations. >> what is important to understand is much of the president's competitive nature with the media -- combative nature has been mostly
theatrical, and not practical or legal. no one has been accused of anything, there have been no attempts to get phone records, the previous administration did both. we should not forget that. this administration has, through and only really through the president, maybe a cabinet secretary will make something about a close, but the concentrated dialogue comes from one person, the president. it has been in a practical sense, theatrical. come to ans have administration worth noting. , andve fewer briefings they are much shorter durations. sarah sanders rethinks clock about 20 minutes. -- briefings clock in at about 20 minutes. which is very sharp. i am not saying we need 1.5
hours. they are much shorter. scheduling that sarah will go through, which all of us already know, we know with the president did, we know what he is going to do, it can be as few as 15 minutes of questions and answers. that constrains what the public sees and hears, asked and answered by the white house. , there mayo be basis be three. most other white house is would have at least four. yet, this president, unlike president obama, is much more willing to engage with white house reporters on a give and take basis in formally, and generate a tremendous, of news. at that level, access to this president and the ability to check in with him, i would much
rather check in with him than the press secretary, to get his thinking on a range of issues, is more frequent and more newsmaking than president obama. president obama had no inclination to do that. butould do it occasionally, it was not his preferred method of communication. it is obviously this president's preferred method. all of us had to adapt to that. we have a way of covering a departure or arrival, former people on the south lawn, far more microphones and cameras. you never know when he is going to walk up and talk to you for 30 minutes. ore thing in cabinet rooms the oval office. my colleagues carry heavy cameras on their shoulders and have had to reimagine what they do. when you are standing there with , thatamera for an hour frame shot has to be solid.
-- you can't bend your knees and stretch your back, it changes the way you approach your job. there have been adaptations to the way this president roles. those around him role in a different way. they take almost everyone of their cues from him, usually retroactively. there is very little preplanning. and the execution of whatever that approach was. we have all had to adapt to that reality. [this is a test for closed captioning, the program will begin shortly] i want -- >> i want to return to you. that is exactly what i want to know. lot, what is the quality of information you're getting? hand, the quality of the information is kind of in a much more concentrated form when you
hear it straight from the horses mouth, particularly when it is off because -- off the cusp. react,get a decision to he spoke to reporters on the plane, that wasn't planned or scheduled, but he had a good rally in west virginia. theas feeling good about cloud feedback and wanted to defend his epa administrator who has come under fire. nobody really knows why he came back, but that is probably why. a lot of ground, everything from stormy daniels, a lot of stuff in between. if youallel question is like to cover policy. every white house covers politics and policy and where they intersect.
the three of us come from a policy background, we love politics. we love a foreign policy, domestic policy. it is harder to cover policy in this administration, because the policy is more fungible. you might try to do a deep dive on what the syria policy is, it may change from the time you begin to after. obama was almost painfully careful. he didn't want to say something unless he knew what he was thinking. once you are able to extricate what the position was, that was pretty much the position. you didn't hear three different versions of it, he wouldn't normally change once he was on a course. this is different.
to write aility consistent policy story that sticks, and the ability to find the airspace for the policy stories when there are so many more colorful personality stories popping. that has created a challenge for reporters like us who don't necessarily trade in palace intrigue or the pure politics of what has coverage as an artform. you have to change the balance of that. moreve all had to become easy and what we do. it is good for all of us to spend our boundaries. i do think in terms of being able to capture the essence of a moment, there are more opportunities for that. i think there is value, but it is weird that rubber meets the road. what the president thinks and how that transfers into governance.
we are still learning that. i think the administration is still learning that. it is only 15 months income it feels like longer. a feels like this should be well-worn path and we should have a better sense of how the moment translates into governance. but we don't. >> we have a phrase, what a long year this week has been fired -- which has been. politics, you have been out talking to people beyond the beltway, both politicians and voters. what are you seeing, and what are they telling you? let's focus on what they are telling you about how they view the president's enunciation of the press and what kind of job
they think the press is doing in covering this president. of the day today coverage of the white house, that moment inside the bubble, day in and day out, there has become a regularization of that. normalization, this is still the most unusual presidency we have seen in many years. there are ways in which people have learned to work together in a relatively productive way. if you pull back from that, when you think about this president, it is true that he remains at war with the press at large. and with the things we have asays tried to do journalists and reporters.
when you talk to people around a cleartry, there is division on that issue, as well as everything else having to do with donald trump. there is no doubt he has been pretty successful in the legitimizing a lot of what the -- whatam media organizations like ours and others represented on the stage have always done. a lot less that we do now that is believed broadly across the country. if you are a supporter of donald trump, you tend not to believe things the washington post publishes or the new york times publishes, or the cable news reports. if you are opposed to the president, you cling to those organizations as a way to try to keep the traditions of the first
amendment allies. division has not lessened, if anything, it is greater today than it was when he came into office. he is quite skillful at that. ands part of his technique part of the way in which he reinforces the support that he was able to attract. think there is another question, how well it will wear over time. if you see cracks, you can see cracks in the polling, even though his approval rating is higher than it has been in the past. whoe are a lot of people are concerned about the level of chaos that seems to be part of the day today, week to week, month to month operation of this administration and particularly the way he does it. nobody goingst around last year who doesn't wish that his twitter feed would be shut down or at least quieted
on a significant basis. even though supporters find that troublesome, annoying and unproductive, even if they continues to date -- to stay with him. this country is divided perhaps more so than it was when he came in. his persistent attacks on the press have certainly taken a toll. paid to give people your opinion. >> when every taxi driver does for free. let's get your take on this. you have been here for a wild. we were reminiscing about watergate, when we were talking
before the panel. how do you compare this to what you have seen over time and what it is like now? >> i often wonder what watergate would have been like if mixing used twitter. just let your minds meditate on that. if you think about how much of the world has changed since the 1970's, -- americay boys nation of is taking hold. -- the recapitalization of america is taking hold. --e politics political beliefs were defined by what neighborhood came from, but what neighborhoods, associations. -- the so reluctant to believe
public hates us more than they used to. they always hated us. gets blamed when there is bad news. i feel like things have gotten more digital and faster. margaret is right about the frustration a lot of us feel. the old body clock we used to operate has fallen apart. school, im an old write a couple of columns a week. maybe some would come up in between. now, i have been told by my editors, forget sunday, wednesday, just put it online when you finish and maybe it will run in print one or two days later.
what do you do when a story like this, the omnibus spending bill, which is a big deal. it gets squeezed in between stormy daniels and roseanne, this is where the days are. that is the new agenda. i don't know what else is coming on. whatever we are working on is important. this is a new day we are dealing with. i see the daily press as i traditionally knew it, but everything is changing. when president trump was first elected, i was concerned to
protect journalists, to protect freedom internationally, including the obama administration's abuses rated i'm not so worried after three or four, when i see how incompetent this administration is. how an efficient desk spot operates. i know how autocracy is supposed to work. you can take results in the neighborhood, they will leave you on. that is happening now. land ofk to my native chicago, where i grew up in the heart of southern ohio, i don't get people debating the russia story. my election friends along the lakefront are talking about it, but the folks in southern iowa are talking about the terrorists -- the folks in iowa are talking about the tariffs
it is very much more bread and butter out there. the kind of things that occupy our days, i am thrilled to cover every bit of russia. bring me more. i know only a certain portion of my readers care about that compared to stormy daniels. they are both important in a couple of different ways, it is vague. >> you deal with things from a conservative point of view. what do you think about the way the president has been talking about the press? what do you think about the way the press covers the president? i have a lot to say on the subject.
i agree with so much of what you just said. one thing that has struck me in all this description -- discussion of the looming autocracy, this is not how autocracy's work. over here from the hotel and didn't see any smoker or fire in the streets. the midste are not in of a constitutional crisis at the moment. there is a big difference between press freedom and canada nation of the press. those are not the same. what the press does, or what it should be doing is covering objectively, as well as it can. productivity itself is in some ways a myth. the press is just composed of people, and that's ok. in politics and trying to answer what is always
the fundamental quest of politics, which is tools. -- two roles. as we address the question, it is addressed from the point of view. i just think transparency. i look at the english press, some of these things may better served in the guardian as left-wing social democrat/socialist paper. i love the guardian, i don't agree with their opinion page, but they do good reporting. you look at the times broadly, fine. they battle it out in print. that is the best we can hope for, a sort of transparency. of the back at the press era, the post-world war ii there is this longing people have for the bygone era i am not
sure really existed, where the press was this arbiter sitting above politics. in fact, nobody is above politics. everybody has engaged with it in some level. that is who we are as human beings. act, why doescal the guardian cover war stories and the times covers a different story? that is perfectly acceptable. i want to give people a lot of credit. your average person going to a university -- people understand what is important to them. the russia story is very important to people within about a 10 mile radius of where we're sitting. i live in arizona, no one cares. they care about what pres. trump: -- tariffs will do two jobs, did my kid get on the basketball team?
was there some sort of process law broken by paul manafort? >> are you saying this isn't a story, or it shouldn't be investigated? >> know, investigate. story. it is a niche if there are additional facts that, from the robert mueller investigation, that could change. right now, people outside of this area code care about the impact of it is laughable how little people outside of washington care about what paul manafort did with ukraine the. they need to get down to basic
political issues of what is good for the country, how this will help me get ahead. i can tell from the expression, people are going to want to challenge you on this point. covered mediaw and politics -- you have covered media and politics for quite a while. what is your perception on where we are now, and is this nothing new? or was this something dangerous going on. more 14ve settled way -- into a more normal routine in terms of press briefings.
called "theece president's war on the fake he talks a lot about how much he dislikes the media. he -- when he decided to pull ,he health care ball -- bill the first people he called for from the new york times in the washington post. he was not calling breitbart. people in the media are a little bit miffed, because they thought they would get all this access. the president so deeply cares about how he is perceived by the national media. times" -- "washington post," that is what he cares about.
talkingn briefings are to the president a lot, and that is really great. all these people who are just talked to the president can tell what they have told them and what they are thinking. this changes how the general public feels about the media. the you look back to "crossfire" days when jon stewart was saying the media is ruining our country, that has been going on for a long time. a recent study out of the and morey said more people believe the media publishes fake news. everyone has a different definition. people think fake news is little things people have made up, but that is a dangerous territory we are entering into.
there are many different outlets that approach the news from different perspectives. moments of really important national stories, moments of crisis, i do think that over the years people have lost trust. when you look into it, there is the change on the global level. we don't have the local newspapers we need to have before and people feel a lot -- you werehen saying about the transparency, who is behind the story. the national media is located in washington, new york, maybe los angeles, and local outlets have seen a huge decline. people say they hate the media but like their media. begin theeople relationship with the media.
the people at the local level are giving them their weather and traffic and when that disappears, they see us as these mysterious people who drive into the country and talk to them and then go away and they don't trust us. i think that is where part of the distress comes from. >> you teed up a question i was thinking of, which has to do with the sinclair television station. i am sure everyone here is familiar with the story that stations in, 191 the country, markets large and small. practice of sending their local station some
editorials, stations are required to run. the most recent example of mandatory commentary was voiced by the anchors of each local television station. "deadspin" made a very clever mashup of it which got ridiculed, but it was also a serious question. television editorials locally have been there since the beginning of television news. but this is usually talked about by someone who was hired specifically to do editorials, that news anchors themselves have not done this kind of commentary. maybe, i will ask you first since you weren't the thevision representative --
president or the chairman of sinclair has pushed back very strongly, saying that this was an important message, and something quite within their rights to do. to late-nightis tv comedy shows that stations are obliged to carry as part of their network contracts, and that has a political edge, so what is wrong with this. is there anything wrong with it? does he have a point? >> that is for audiences to decide. in this question of what the news,"nt calls "fake that is called into question. i am all in favor of calling into question. what is journalism? what does it look like? questions? the right
news stories in public interest? i fundamentally believe and -- believe and i have build my entire career on this, that willdible journalism always outlast incredible politicians, whoever that politician is. i have no problem with that question being called. what is journalism? i am comfortable with that. said, we are saying bad journalism is harmful. i agree. reckless journalism is harmful. but when you have a declining emphasis on local journalism produced by local newspapers, and my first wife worked in local television, the local television station got a lot of its content from the local newspaper. orn the local newspaper dies begins to die, the local television station begins to die
, because it doesn't have the resources to be at the school board. station reads about what happens at the school board and decides to report on it. but if the television station wasn't at the original school board meeting, the local station does not know what happened. these things are very closely linked. this is something that is very important for its country to wrap its arms around, what is the model of community .ournalism i worked in newspapers in three different cities. to one degree or another, had a competitive newspaper environment. environments almost don't exist anywhere in this country anymore. they barely have a single heavyweight newspaper anymore. community journalism, that place
within a community where people talk to and learn about each other and cover community events and participate in that experience, either in covering it or learning about it or watching it, is an experience we are less and less the with than we were 10 years ago. thehe era of donald trump aew york times" has become more fortified business model because of subscribers. the big corporations and big newspapers found themselves fortifying in the stressful, high octane world. local journalism hasn't. the next great move in this conversation america has about first amendment rights and responsibilities and how they interact with our daily lives, this will play out much more thattantly in communities in washington dc or new york city or los angeles. agree.mpletely
the component of the connection of journalism in local communities feeding this distress, i have written about the erosion of this. there was a real effort to get out into america and talk to americans in rural communities about hopes, fears, concerns, questions about the white house administration covering what has journalism issues. there was a series of town halls at presidential libraries all over the country. i think we have one coming up in may in southern california. did was at thest german library. there was a quasi-related event a few weeks later with the american public square. 1000 people came out for that
second event. several hundred for that first event. people stayed afterwards to talk with us. [indiscernible] >> accept no one threw bottles -- except no one threw bottles. [laughter] of emails fromer people who attended that session. the people who did stay afterwards to talk to us often times wanted to talk about local issues in their community. theabout stormy daniels or omnibus bill, but something happening in their hometowns that they couldn't get anyone to pay attention to. that was incredibly instructive for me. if there are a couple of lessons for us in this, and we can
reopen this can of worms when we i would not personally work for an organization that features a partisan leaning. i consider myself a completely unaffiliated voter. as a newswoman, and not an opinion writer. us in someessons for of the challenges of the last 15 months or 10 years. one of those is the erosion of a connection. understanding they what the media is. one of these great speakers we do a lot of partnering with -- one thing
they learned is a lot of the public believes when you have a story with background sources, an anonymous source, that source is anonymous to the reporter. these are words we traded. we assume everyone knows. we know who we are talking to. >> [laughter] we don't always know why they are talking to us, but we all -- always know who they are. at bloomberg, we have a system. two of our top editors need to know who they are. leadership positions decide whether to authorize the person as a source. we have conversations as to why they can't be on the record, we always need a way to verify what they are saying. to go fro -- from what i know about how this works and to
america thinks in that we didn't know who they peoples like, no wonder feel they can trust what they are reading. it is important for all of us to , we a step back and realize use special language most people don't speak it. obviously can't be entirely transparent. our source would be anonymous if we told everyone who the source was, but you can have transparency about the process. who areular americans among the group that feel they have a sense of distrust about coming from at is place of frustration and disconnection or isolation or wish we couldy fulfill that we are not helping them to fulfill.
than see those people as people who don't understand, it is important to reconnect with them. these are the people we need to reach the most. >> how does journalism we build trust with their audience -- rebuild trust with their audience? >> a great question. i think dan was right to talk broadere attacks on our credibility, which creates an environment in which people feel more disconnected from the media. they don't trust us as much. part of this is our fault. we need to do a better job of explaining who we are and what we do. they may think sources are anonymous to us. leaders were our eline"sed that if "datlin
said los angeles or moscow, reporters were reporting from that place. readers thought we spent thousands of dollars to rusty reporters to get to the place we were reporting on. not understand we weren't doing that. we do a terrible job of explaining ourselves. we try to counter that in the same way market is talking about. to counter that in the same way that margaret is talking about. we have allowed cameras into our offices to do a series that will air on showtime in may about our , so they can see reporters doing a little bit of what we do and why we make the decisions we make. explaining, i think
we understand, but our readers and viewers may not. every decision we make could be political. i would agree with that, but there is no such thing at objectivity. we blurred the lines so much note days, and it is surprising our readers don't see the difference between a news reporter and a commentator. and see people paid to have an opinion. i am not paid to have an opinion. why should readers get something sayingnt than whoever is , trump is great? you are next to a political operative. no one can tell the difference. >> strategist, commentator, former this or that. our new stories are right next to our opinion columns.
there used to be a cleaner billion nation in the old days. -- my last point is that dan and i write a lot of analysis. tohink it is hard for us explain the difference between what dan does and what clarence does, the difference between news analysis and opinion columns. there are a lot of same elements to them sometimes, but they are meant to be different, and i think we can do a better job of this by ourselves. dan, what do you think should be done to try and reach trust and credibility levels? dan: this is not an easily solved problem. it is reflective of a broader set of divisions within the country.
the credibility of the press has always been a relatively low. qualitatively different point. i think a couple of things. we are noth peter always a smart as we ought to be about explaining why we do what we do and why we believe that what we do is important. try to do it in a way we have traditionally done it. out theley points incorporated has traditional news organizations -- there is some disconnect on the part of american media and i don't think that is entirely healthy. there is a role for referees, if that is all possible.
whether that is an independent think tank or a news organization that tries to adhere -- we're not taking political sites -- sides in the way we cove,r, that's impossible. you take sides in any story that has a political sensibility, but those judgments are not made for political reasons. that is an important way about the way american media works, as opposed to some media. twitter is not our friend on a lot of these things. is a platformr that if not encourages, makes it for reporters to express things that look like , it is the nature of that medium.
i think reporters need to be about that. we need to trust the quality of reporting that we do in that quality will hold up. jobs the way we think we are doing them, and are pursuing truth as best as we can , and we know that we don't get all of it in the first if we of the event -- continue to do that, and that is kind of our goal or mission, to continue to see that through top over time, our credibility would rise again. but that will not happen until there is a different political
comment -- climate in the country and i am not predicting that will happen anytime soon. >> and the cost of a mistake can be higher. the cost of a mistake today is greater than it was in the past. we are on notice and we know people will seize on that. we know people make mistakes and good news organizations do everything we can to correct those mistakes as quickly as we can. do make mistakes, and i don't mean the misspelling perhaps they happen even more today because we are in such a rush to publish before when weully edit -- make those now, they play into the idea we are deliberately trying to distort. i want to go to one last set of questions before we turn to the audience.
to talk about president trump's tweets about amazon and his accusations that the washington post is a lobbyist for amazon. you and i were talking and you said this is part of a pattern. there are questions right now about companies getting is a pure ashere company merger antitrust merger case with at&t and time warner. "tribune."ught the there are questions about how much media a company can own. amazon is buying a bunch of stuff we do every day in our lives. 21st century fox will become part of disney. about this.estions we should be debating them. but they become very much politicized.
the president has made comments that part of the reason he does not like amazon is because jeff owns, who owns amazon, "the washington post." executives at amazon have no "post" does.at the but he tweets about this all the time. the at&t merger to go through and he is very public about what he thinks at cnn. said positive things about sinclair. i have not heard him say anything negative about 21st century fox and disney's merger. they become politicized. whether or not there are behind the scenes, nefarious directives being given out, it has a real debate we should be having about antitrust and ownership, because we have this question.
you have to wonder how the results of all these various out, and howay much his comments about them will affect decisions. i can't tell you how big these decisions are. cases will determine a lot of our lives, the media we consume and how we consume it and these companies interact. these sound very high level, but ideal with them every day. important toedibly the future of our country and the future of business in this country. to wall street and media analysts, they seize into this chaotic feeling that they aren't sure which way this is going to go and they think future media companies might not want to buy another company because they might be feel the polityearful size nature of this will make it harder to go through. -- thisis president
president making his voice clearly heard about how he feels on certain issues. he is giving the impression it is personal. and what about the lobbying charge? today on a long story the front page of the print theion i mark fisher about two worlds of donald trump and jeff bezos, both billionaires. builder,ump, being a an old-fashioned person, and jeff bezos represents a digital push. there is in part a cultural envy betweens some 1 -- one million are versus another. jeff bezos is now the richest presidentthe world,
trump having been produced a little bit in the force of the hierarchy of billionaires. but fred ryan and our editor, -- this idea that jeff bezos in one way or another is pulling the strings and how we cover the news is not the case. know, jeff bezos does not interfere with the editorial page. done some very good things for the washington post, including spending a lot of money that has allowed us to , afterlot of reporters which we have had to reduce the size of our staff, because like every news organization we were bleeding money and we had to try and stay within a budget. he has been helpful in encouraging us to develop an engineering operation, so that
everything digitally works better and faster and smoothly, so on all of those fronts, he has been eighth positive force at the post. news,e way we covered the there was no indication from anyone that something is being done, because jeff bezos thinks it ought to be done, and there is a political edge to why he owns the "washington post." let's go to questions from our audience. if you wait for the microphone and raise her hand, i will call on -- raise your hand, i will call on you. something was said about readers not understanding what is going on in the newspaper when they put in terms like anonymous sources, and the one
about the reporting from "dateline." did you ever think about putting story toles to the explain some of the terms people are ignorant of? it might be easy to get them to understand what is going on. -- thewe're in the meal redesigned to our website that will put more clarity and transparency on some of these things. they're going to put pictures of reporters and bios, trying to explain things. we need to find more ways to do that. did a great job during the roy moore story last year as to how they got that story. they found it because a reporter happened to talk to someone who mentioned this offhand and the reporters went and pursued the
story. that transparency is helpful. it demystifies the assumptions people have about the media. say,stunned that people that story is planted by so and so, or this story is timed this way because it serves so and so. to run into someone last night at a party completely randomly. our process is not very good at telling readers where our stories come from. you are right. you aboutto tell something the correspondents association is excited about. it goes to the issue of what is the cumulative value we do in covering the white house. three years ago, margaret and i came up with this idea. we had companies who kept the byr-by-hour report
journalists who cover the president every day. if the president walks to the helicopter from the oval office, a report filed on that movement. the president is wearing this, did or did not take a question, the helicopter lands, the president gets on the plane, there is such a report about that. every single movement and everything he says. correspondents association has created a cooperation with ae university of maryland and museum. we are going to create a digital oards, everyhe warb report filed from president george w. bush going forward. the largest collection of hour-by-hour, day-to-day journalism by the president of the united states -- of the president of the united states in our country. it will involve the public,
journalists, it will show people what we do and how we do it. what is it like, how does it read, what is the humility of value. going back to such reports routinely, even though i was there, just to remind myself exactly what happened and when, down to the minute. reports tryy such to elevate awareness as to how we go back -- about this work, and to make it available to anyone who is curious about the american presidency. that is something we could not be more excited about. >> breaking news right and left. >> [laughter] >> next question? this lady, wait for hthe microphone. whether youto ask
guys think social media plays a good or a bad role when it comes to journalism, and what re--- we can do to try and tell the difference between true and fake news. i will try. that is hard. i think it is both good and bad. twitter can put you into a bubble. people say that we're just trying to write news so that our followers on twitter will all tweak it. if you go anywhere outside of washington, a lot of people don't use twitter. me to know what these people are doing all the time and what they are tweeting, so i follow it closely, and it is grateful for politicians to get the message out without having to go through us. and to speak directly to the people.
foran be very hard consumers to understand how to handle social media, because there is so much of it, so many different elements, and it is hard to understand what is a legitimate outlet and what is not. a lot of it just comes from calling it yourself. if people want to get into twitter, start small and follow a few good organizations, let newspapers you already read or personalities you know. and then look at two key follows or the list he might have created on his social media page and say, this is what he sees in his speed every day. another thing i really love about social media is that we all find ourselves in our
bubbles, you follow friends, a news result, but you are not seeing someone who might have a different point of view, what they are seeing. certainne supports causes of the nra, their media feed much -- must look much different than someone at the march last week. thee is a program from "wall street journal," called red feed, blue feed, where you can see what the feed would look like if you followed different news outlets. blowing toimes mind see how people can live in different worlds. i highly recommend if you yourself are of a certain persuasion, follow in -- an organization you think is the exact opposite of you and frustrates you every day and follow that and see what they say. it can be mind opening a little bit. mark zuckerberg is going to
be testifying before congress next week. facebook is certainly having some difficulties. the last panel talked about a public relations nightmare, or something like that. clarence, you have been following some of this. do you think we can expect regulations? mark zuckerberg has agreed to appear. members of congress have been trying to get him every couple of years. you can tell he is really in deep you know what this time. he is getting a lot of negative blowback. on facebook are discovering our meta-data has been sold out there without our consent.
i think those three words are important. without our consent. always been a suspicion about facebook and all of this, from my wife, to everyone else in the planet, about what the story is really all about. i think facebook is part of our lives. should we make it a public utility? it is like the telephone. this is the debate going on what is happening underneath the surface. zuckerberg is an engineer. very bright. the kind of guy who was always testing the limits and apologizing later. how many apologies has he made in the last dozen years?
now people are more concerned about how much are the social media companies taking our concerns into consideration, versus doing whatever i told they get called back. don't knowcongress enough about how facebook works, and by the time they do, the regulations they make will be obsolete. >> other thoughts? is the ageneration of something. a century ago, it was the industrial revolution and industrial age. maybe it was antibiotics.
generation, one of the defining developments of our time is data, and the weight data is shared. just the volume and intensity with which you can receive and sort and use information. on the one hand, that's given us all a bigger mandate and more potential power to reach people. on the other hand, it's complicated the ability for the media to be the source because everybody can be a media outlet in another sense. we are -- we all already know that. but everything we're talking about has to be seen through the data, the story of our age. and everything and everyone who has sought to lasso that from our current president to all of us in our bosses is contending -- all of us and our bosses is contending with these huge, massive sweeping forces that are unleashed because of the
technological developments and a lot of the issues that we're struggling with like reader distrust or facebook, whether foreign governments can abuse that or whatever has to do with the technology that is much bigger than any of us. to that extent, we're all in this together to try to figure it out. >> our time is running out. do we have more questions? here in the front row. a microphone, here. thank you. >> an observation that i'll try to turn into a question. for fun i look at a lot of , different newspapers and periodicals. if you look at the articles, the , the "wallmedia, fox street journal," the reporting in the article is fairly similar. it changes in the headline. if you want to have a little
fun, look at an article on "the new york times" or "washington post" and look at the headline and how it's portrayed in "the wall street journal." a lot of people read headlines. if you want to talk about something to be informed, work on the headline writers. >> the president of the united states did that the other day. he offered an alternative headline for dan's newspaper. headline is that the he said was wrong was not factually wrong. he just chose to see the story through this side of the lens rather than that side of the lens. you are right. headline writers deserve a big raise because it is a hardest thing in the world to get a headline right. we have thousand words to try to get the subtleties of a story right and make sure every side is represented as eded as best -- represented as best we can. those guys have seven words.
people doing it for print have to make it fit very narrow columns. to be able to capture the nuance of the story without seeming to tilt one side is is a tricky thing. they are asking reporters to do this and having experienced this, i can tell you it's a bear. >> another phenomenon completely related to the digital experience -- which is when i came up in the newspaper business, as peter and dan, headline writers for the newspaper had a certain construct and certain space and certain mandate. it had nothing to do with search engine optimization. search engine optimization is is -- optimization is anchor words in the headline that are most likely to generate the most clicks. ok? that has fundamentally changed the editorial content and the construct and the mission and the motive of a headline. been ornot say it has
an altogether clean fortuitous turn in headline writing because clickability over these more fundamental nuanced accuracies. they can tend to dramatize things in a way that are likely to catch more eyes and catch more clicks. one thing that's changing in the industries for the last ten years the industry has transitioned from print to digital kept assuming that more clicks would create more digital ad revenue. that was the assumption. it has been proven largely false. more clicks per story don't advertisers.al relationships impress digital advertisers, substantial eyeballs on a page. what you have to have is sustained coverage that creates a relationship that builds trust, credibility and so -- subscriptions and long-term viewing are now much more valuable to digital advertising and pay a higher premium where
five or ten years ago, the more clicks we have, and i worked in a newsroom for awhile there was , this tv screen that measured every story by the hour, by the clicks. those have gone away. this relationship mode is now become a much more long-term and sustainable business mode. >> we have about two minutes left. i want to do a lightning round of what the future holds. do we think that the situation is a briefow phenomenon, or is this a permanent state? ver unusualin a moment. ybut i also think there are deeper things about this moment that are going to winter whether , donald trump is in the white
house after 2020 or not. and so i think the challenges for the media are are going to continue almost irregardless of whether president trump maintains the power that he has at this >> not permanent, but point. will definitely have an impact for years going forward. a note of caution and a note of hope. the issues that we are talking about with the media are issues all institutions are facing. product oftially the dramatic centralization. -- there is much more trust. we have to think about that. this is the hopeful thing for some of these media organizations. when you look at a crooked stick , it is not helpful to argue over whether or not it is
crooked. want to organizations be successful, just find taste -- find a straight stick and we will figure it out. >> the one thing i do expect you happen is more trouble is asian of our media and media audiences. meaning demographics in a truly journalistic sense. i never thought "black panther" would be breaking box office it just opened in saudi arabia as their first movie in history. this is happening -- our a 1984 book came
about that talked about how entertainment values are corrupting journalism, particularly television journalism. we have her first television reality president who used television values to when enough of the nation's hearts to win electoral votes to get into the white house and i think he was even surprised by his success. what if you get someone who was a little bit more knowledgeable and more slick through the media ? a guy like abraham lincoln, tall and lanky, which he be able to make it in the television age? media has an impact on our politics. we can deny it, but we should understand it. existential question should be answered by existing first in a truly journalistic sense >>. [laughter] >> you have to exist.
if you don't have shelter, food, or water, you have to exist, focus on the fundamentals. local journalism has to exist. journalism practices and trade have to do this right every single day, over and over, to exist the second thing i would first. point out is the millennial generation will have a lot to say. i get three children, 23, 21, and their social media habits 17. adapt and change every day. they are not the same as they were four years ago and they will not be the same four years from now. the millennial generation affects the way we talk, how we look at things, safe spaces, trigger points all sorts of , notions about how to connect, connectedness feels, what is real, what is not. journalist,fe as a my kids ask me, how do you do
this? they do not know how. they are going to have a very big say in these underlying fundamental issues, the first thing that we have to do is exist and the second thing we have to do is adapt as her audience adapts. -- our audience adapts. >> [laughter] >> in this information age information is something that , everyone expects, demands, counts on and to some extent, takes for granted. it is the last part that worries me and the rest of it gives me hope. i think the most important thing for all of us to do is to reconnect people to the idea that the press is there to serve you, the american public that information creates that you can use to help you get the most out of your government demand changes when you need it, , and make decisions about your life. in building trust we need to remind people that the first amendment is about them, not
about us, it is about democracy and being an american and not about business models. that is a small task i am chipping away at. >> i am an optimist and i think this is obviously an extraordinary moment for journalism right now. this extraordinary moment that maybe president trump has accelerated, exacerbated or accentuated. it was changing anyway. our media would have been changing no matter who was president and will continue to change after he is gone, it is a period of creative destruction and we focusing a lot on the destruction. i am am an optimist and very excited by the creativity, and organizations today that are meaningful, important, and significant that did not exist 10 years ago. while we are losing an awful lot, we are gaining an awful lot.
i love how our kids are going to reinvent journalism and bring into a new era. >> for all the students out there, this is a great time to be getting into journalism. we wish you every success. thank you to the panel. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] "washington journal." aming up sunday morning,
former cia and intelligence officer will be on to talk about gina haskell's nomination for cia director. and filmmakers discuss the vietnam war's impact on the u.s. homefront as part of c-span's "america in turmoil." live at 7 a.m. eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. >> contributing editor of about the 1968 mission to the moon. them believedf without there -- their wives, they could not have pulled this off. apollo eight was the most daring
space mission nasa had ever run. it look like certain death to many. needed wives at home who were absolutely supportive, who also did not reveal to their husbands just how much they were suffering and how terrified they really were. a" sunday night at eight eastern on c-span. er: president trump takes part in a roundtable discussion in cleveland with ohio residents. labor secretary alex acosta and representative jim ready seat to discuss the tax reform legislation passed in december. this is just under one hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]