tv U.S. Capitol Historical Society on Social Media Congress and Democracy CSPAN August 9, 2018 10:02am-11:06am EDT
>> might as well get settled this morning. thanks for joining us today. if it sounds like this is scripted, it is. i'm following marching orders. i forget stuff, including, i will to you my name. historian atief the u.s. capital historical society. today's lecture is part of an ongoing series. there were flyers available at or front desk for all five six lectures of which this is the second. next week i'm inviting you back but not to the library of congress which has been a but a 200 host, maryland avenue northeast, the talk next week is by seth mask
and congressional communications. going to be speaking about -- i was try to figure out how to explain this in a sentence or you came up with interactivity which is actually an expression they came up with. andnexus of evolving trends -- nature of represented a of representation and technology. join me in welcoming our speakers today. [applause] chuck.ks, we are happy to be part of this series from the united states capital historical society today and really excited about these lectures concerning .ongressional capacity
we are happy to welcome you to the library of congress. jacob and i both were here at the library so it's great to be hosting this lecture here today. 2009research started in when a few people got together at the congressional research service and sat around and wondered how our members of congress using social media. laterorward nine years and we've done a number of projects. a number of crs reports published on this topic. a number of university wide year-long projects done in ofjunction with a number public policy and public administration programs and also a number of peer-reviewed journal articles published. i think right now we are at the point where we want to be able to try to say something, step back a bit and look at the big picture. how is social media potentially changing norms of representation in congress?
our keythat was interest all along and now we are able to say something about it. so we are here at the library of congress, our new mission statement at the library of congress. we are happy to be talking about that mission statement, engage, inspire and inform congress and the american people with the universal and enduring source of knowledge and creativity. we hope you are able -- we hope we are able to live up to that. we like this quote from thomas jefferson. there is no subject to which a member of congress may not have occasion to refer. so someone asks why are you studying that we can point to this particular quote. this picture is thomas jefferson's library, the basis for the collections here at the library of congress. they exist one floor above us in thomas jeffersons building. jacob will give us an
introduction to the substance of our talk here today. our -- >> we are excited to be able to share our research with you through the capital historical societies summer lecture series. 1973, david mayhew posited members primary, although not only goal, is reelection. this comes with several lines of inquiry. in order for members to be reelected they must connect with constituents and demonstrate policy or institutional successes. in order to gain power within the house or senate or to win on policy issues for the constituents members have to know what their constituents want. member constituent communications serves a vital role in representative government. if information about legislative activity cannot easily flow from members to constituents citizens will be left incapable of
drawing policy judgments. if constituents cannot easily communicate with members congressional action is less likely to reflect the actions of the governed. constituent communication is one of the basic building blocks of rep democracy. at this cartoon imagines what it might look like if a social media network replaced those items we typically find on our desks. this includes traditional ways in which members gather to situate information but also new and more modern uses of those spaces. social media is changing this process. the desire for information is still there but members of congress have access to more data from more places than ever before. that was evident on march 20, 2017 when james comey, then director of the fbi, testified
before the house intelligence committee about russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. in the course of the question answer portion of the hearing are presented jim himes asked mr. comey about a tweet president trump had sent during the hearing in response it was reported that mr. comey said i'm sorry i have not been following anyone on twitter while i've been sitting here. bitl come back to that in a while it's not unusual that a government official would be asked to respond to a statement by the president it was unusual that the president tweet was sent during the hearing and that the congressman used it as part of the question almost real-time . in many ways the exchange between representative himes and mr. comey is unique. it illustrates a fundamental shift in communications and representation. the 1990's. there is an internet now.
today we're in a different world. ideasentative a mosh's that the internet has changed -- on the surface appears to be accurate. numerous media reports covering elements have indicated constituents are using social media to organize and voice displeasure about a variety of issues. social media, specifically twitter, has erased traditional blocks most specifically cost and time for the flow of information between members and constituents. members can receive information correctly from followers and potentially utilize that information in real-time. provides social media constituents with a platform to engage directly with members and other constituents or followers in a virtually cost free manner. true whenarticularly the house democrats used her and facebook live to broadcast their
june 2016 gun control sit in on the house floor. at that time the house was out of session so by house rule cameras in the chamber were turned off and c-span was not broadcasting the chamber floor. in an effort to show their sit in to constituents and followers some democratic members decided to show the sit in on social media, a tactic that had not been available during previous citizens. even though brought cap -- previous sit inns. the democratic members who chose to share the moment seemingly decided it was more important to show constituents and other followers exactly what was happening in real-time. in fact, the day after the sit in the speaker pro tem made an announcement reminding members they are not to video -- not to record floor actions on their cell phones. he said as the chair announced previously the speaker's policy with respect to the use of the
chamber will continue in the current congress. the chair would call particular attention to aspects of this policy regarding the use of certain devices because outside coverage of the chamber is limited for proceedings and is allowed only by accredited journalists where the chamber is on static display. no audio or transmitting additional audiovideo recording or transmitting of devices is allowed. providing participating members with an outlet and 24 -- or two for not available. mentions, crs has been studying social media in congress the last nine years. not to pat ourselves on the back of we were some of the first to re. thei since 2012 we published six studies using 71,000 observations.
these studies have primarily focused on social media adoptions and usage. i wanted to show some of that research briefly this morning, today. of this16, 99% -- as summer, 99 percent of representatives in 100% of senators have twitter accounts. this is an increase from 97% of representatives and 93% of senators shown here on the slide which is a further increase from 79% of all members who had a twitter account in 2012 and when we first started this only 38% of members for signed up with twitter. so twitter and facebook are important that they are not the only social media platforms as some of you i'm sure are aware. during the 201620 17 academic year crs partnered with the lyndon johnson school of public affairs at the university of texas to study social media
adoption beyond facebook and twitter. this slide shows some of the other platforms that members are adopting in addition to facebook, twitter, and youtube. for senators you can see instagram, flickr, google plus where the most adopted platforms for 2016 and for the members of the house, instagram, linkedin, and flickr. that tells one part of the story of adoption. another thing we found to be interesting and potentially one of the most striking findings from our 2013 article was that we realized ideology matters to the early adopters of twitter at least. in the traditional dimension we normally think about in political science or in the popular press. extremelyembers with conservative or liberal ideology were overall more likely to adopt twitter than other members of congress.
if the important because potential is there to reach people who might not reach to more traditional forms of media. as i briefly mentioned social media adoption is very important tree at one of the things i'm currently working on but it's not the only thing our work has focused on. some past studies have examined what members are posting and broad categorization. tweet'slysis of members s, members were taking up position on a particular issue. as was followed by state or official action. events taking place in the district or state and policy statements in which members expressing a statement about policy without taking a particular position on that matter. we've looked at committee tweets and facebook posts and can see
some of the same patterns that exist within the committees that exist for members. this study was done in the 113th congress again with conjunction of the lbj school of public affairs. political stances make up the plurality, by very small margin, .f what committees are posting are merrily to stick out positions. now going to turn this back over to colleen who's going to talk about a bridge to representation. >> we are going to talk about existing models of representation and then we will talk about our model. we will start with the earliest , thepts of representation
delegate versus the trustee models which came to us from edmund burke. delegates represent constituent interests and desires while trustees use independent judgment to promote general welfare or the common good. that is the dichotomy which existed for many years. when thinking about theoretical models of representation. york inresented new previous decades. this was an odd couple. there are some odd couples in the senate and this is definitely an odd couple not just for party differences. classic deli the -- the model made it really a priority to represent the interest of his constituents and moynahan had a strong representative as a senator concerned with national issues.
demonstratinging -- let's fastts forward to 2003. -- sheman bridge expanded upon these models of representation and said there were not just to models of representation anymore. there are actually four. we will review these briefly. promissory representation means the present promises during campaigns which they either keep or fail to keep during governing. means candidates -- it is very future oriented type of representation. ,yroscopic representation
representative looks within to deeply held principles to make decisions. it's surrogate representation which is sometimes also known as descriptive representation is this isegislators sometimes based on things like gender race or sexual orientation. sometimes surrogate representation can be issued based. .o that is a brief overview her is not appealing article this is our interpretation of her models of representation. the elements of election, the governing and reelection as well as the concept of linear time. representatives might receive
input from constituents along the way but representatives are either trying to please voters at t1, time of election, which is promissory, or t3, anticipatory. either way accountability occurs at t3, the time of election. as much as representatives would like to inform voters they rely upon institutions to mediate the message such as interest groups, the media and political parties. man's bridge's notion of surrogate representation there is no possibility for accountability or sanctions since the representative does not necessarily represent those within his or her demographic district or area. we will revisit that later in the talk. so now we are getting on to what we want to try to present, our notion of interactive representation. we don't think this model should
completely replace all those other models of representation, rather we think this is an additional model that needs to be considered. weak knowledge that interactive representation is in its early stages of development but we feel that in the future representation will eventually more mimic this detection in the previous depictions of representation. when we picture interactive this is ation, graphic of a nuclear chain reaction by the way. on the surface, you can see how this model is different from this model. so now we're going to talk about an actual definition of interactive representation, not .ust pictures we define interactive representation as continuous munication and the back between voters and representatives, absent geographic restraint institutional arrangements or formal groups to mediate exchanges.
a few words of like to emphasize in the definition. continuous communication and feedback is meant to distinguish our model from previous models of representation. accountability and sanctions do not only exist at the time of election. we think there's many instances and opportunities for feedback and potentially sanctions throughout a representatives lifecycle. the communication is to way hence the word interactive representative ask for feedback constituents listen and provide it and representatives take that information into account in the formal executions of their duties. even more importantly these types of exchanges can occur even more importantly these
types of exchanges can occur outside the boundaries of geographic this is our depiction of what representational time -- what interactive representation looks like. an amendment to that previous graphic you saw earlier. but we are trying to show his there is more dialogue or back-and-forth exchanges happening in real time between representatives and constituents. produced in influence there still an element of linear time because every two years in the house of representatives as we on the members need to stand for reelection but this concept alters the notion of promissory or anticipatory models of representation offered by man
sbridge. one important distinction is that in anticipatory representation the representative seeks to educate or manipulate the preferences of .oters drink we argue the converse is also we argue the converse is also true. the constituents have the opportunity to interact with each other. at same time the interact with representatives. the significant reduction in institutional areas for .ollective action as constituents share with each other they alter the feedback. .wo other important effects
no accountability previously for sort get representation since constituents had no opportunity social media does provide such opportunity for accountability .nd surrogate representation it's possible that interactive -- this inward isw of representation possibly going the way of the dinosaur. folders might face to election -- over time will be very excited, vena cava principles without interaction during this .ime period
>> thank's for the modern technology that's in front of me have a tweet from the nsa and fbi tell congress russia did not influence the electoral process so that is not quite accurate that tweet. >> i have not been following anybody on twitter while i've been sitting here. congressa and fbi tell russia did not influence the electoral process. this has gone out to millions of americans. , the nsa andto you fbi tell russia -- so congress russia did not influence the electoral process. >> it's hard for me to react. said ise of what we live offered no opinion, have no --w or information on the assertion you have told the
congress that there was no influence on the electoral process is not quite right. it wasn't our intention to say that today but we don't have information on that subject. anthony: so quitting aside the policy question which is not what we are here today to discuss. mr. himes was able to incorporate real-time information to his questioning and made the witness .ncomfortable this might be one of the first .imes social media you can imagine a scenario where a tweet from a constituent or a follower was used to ask a i secondin real time
example -- sorry. our second example comes from mr. saul well. in march 2015 asked for student debt stories during a horse -- i mentioned we -- we have been talking to young americans and people with student debt across america. phone can tweet on your -- you can see the second paragraph and a tweet that generated his statement for the congressional record. this came from a can to chewing. my hometown in california. he goes on to talk about the district a little bit.
without such payments chic saved by house. -- withouty powerful the real world examples that he might have gone to in a previous era and instead asks people to tweet him and uses those stories in real-time. this has great potential and power for the member to gather information process it and use it all at once. those institutional things we're used to having. colleen talked about before. instead of it becoming an immediate example to be used on the floor. our third example comes from congressman amosh who often provides voting at the nations on his page.
onexplained why he voted yes r hes 631, a rule for the consideration of two house bills . assisting to explanation. tickets directly to the point that he's explaining himself to his followers and constituents he does support a debate on that measure on the house floor. this has got a lot of power taking the powers explanatory statement to. one would guess this went .hrough his press shop direct access to provide that both explanation. our final case study is probably everyone's favorite.
2017 peter or rourke and look -- our road trip in an effort to get here during a snowstorm. to connect with constituents and followers using facebook live sans sent me trying to describe that road trip to show a video from cbs this morning which summarizes the road trip and .hat they did >> yesterday's snowstorm provided a unique way for a pair congressman to put differences they have outside. .hip reid is at the candidate >> with so many flights canceled -- they were not close friends before the tribute and started but that appears to
be changing. sxsw. parking on a cross-country road trip from san antonio texas to washington, d.c. >> this is the high-tech map i worked on last night. they are live streaming the 1600 mile journey. but this is no ordinary political carpool. burke is a republican overlord is a democrat. >> model the bipartisan agreements we want to see on the hill. >> their bipartisan road trip is sort of a town hall on wheels. >> aunt to questions, solve the country's problems. >> people are asking questions.
they're are tackling issues ranging from health care to immigration to education. >>? do we defund the department of education >> caretaking food recommendations. > lopez and job -- >> we are never getting to d.c. stuff i should have known. but us showing that we can disagree without being disagreeable. >> do you think you can take that back with you to washington? and through it all they are finding common ground. >> showing we can work together. .> whataburger unites us all >> they arrived in nashville about 2:00 a.m. and hit the road again. you just might be hearing more o'rourke he's thinking of .unning against ted cruz so far he's not counting on
support from his new republican copilot. ofs is a really good example old-fashioned constituent service. connecting with the district. it also is something that could never have happened before facebook live. maybe in the area of digital it's not nearly as effective as being able to stream that live take suggestions on coffee shops to visit an answer policy questions which they did not have to do but chose to do as part of their experience. stuffs all very positive but there are limitations to our research. for that, soon as i get slide clicked over i will hand it back to colleen. >> is a lot of challenges to this type of work. sort of uncovered some of the
challenges as we gone along. as we move ahead in our research we may want to move ahead from the case studies we offered here today and think about how we can measure interactivity. the question is what is interactive -- is it simply followers tweeting back or leaving a comment on a facebook page? what do we count and what don't we count? that is an imperial -- an empirical question that's going to have to be taken seriously. the other question is who is actually giving feedback. geographic or non-geographic constituents. we don't know who is exactly getting feedback to members of congress. another challenge of working with social media. members of congress don't know exactly who their constituents and their non-constituents on .ocial media
restart to think about surrogates of representation. understanding who is a constituent would be important so that we can measure and think about it seriously. the last concern is measuring the effects on policy and governance. goodf these examples are but we are very interested and how to members take this feedback. to change their actions i by emphasizing a particular policy issue or changing their kenyans on a particular policy issue. how is social media affecting policy and governance. as you know is a lot of elements into play when members are making decisions about what to pursue, how to vote or what questions to ask in a committee hearing. want to posit what are
the consequences of interactive representation. so taking a step back if all of these things are true and this is the direction where were headed, what does that mean for the big picture. for american democracy, representative government. so this is from a normative perspective. we go down this path, what can we expect more of in the future? first, the feedback given by constituents is restricted either medium in which it is communicated. twitter is great budget have a limited number of characters instagram is popular but how does communication based upon images translate into a policy discussion or debate? popular but you might question its efficiency for members of congress or its efficacy these considerations must be taken seriously and it's thertant to mention them technical mediums are defining what's possible and that's
potentially a very big change for representative democracy. secondly members of congress are given a specific legend or appropriation for the operations of their congressional office. these funds have largely flatlined and this is resulted .n smaller resources for staff combine that with the reality that members now feel the need to perhaps hire an additional communication staffer to lead their social media efforts, that means that funding has to come from somewhere else in a member's budget. flat appropriations translate into a zero-sum game. this can mean there will be fewer staff members available for policy and legislative matters. the allotment of resources in a congressional office can have long-term impacts for what the institution focuses on. over time we might imagine members might be getting more real-time information from their constituents about preferences but also have fewer resources to
translate those preferences into policy proposals or deliverables. thoughme it seems as nonresponsiveness will become less acceptable as a political .hoice as constituents become more used to interactive representation and start to expect interactivity it will be hard for members to refuse to engage on a regular basis. in fact, nonresponsiveness could become a real political liability. i think back to doug arnold's book first published in 1992 titled hologic of congressional action. the reason why members of congress can make decisions to enact legislation benefiting the general welfare in part is due to the fact that some members decisions were not traceable to voters. also the existence of inattentive public's figures in as well.
will inattentive public and not traceable effects exist in the future? in the likelihood dave already begun to disappear. surrogate representation has the potential to benefit from social media and interactive representation. if a member wanted to engage in surrogate representation he or she had to develop a national engage of some sort to in that activity and that often meant a member of congress had to figure out a way to get into mainstream media are tracked some sort of attention or seniority or earn seniority in congress are now members of congress can speak widely on a number of matters and become national leaders for constituencies that never existed before of course this can raise expectation for action and results. social media also provides the accountability mechanism that did not exist for for surrogate representation. this may not translate into votes on election day but it can
how important effects on legislators are perceived. it can also have ramifications for the money members can raise for campaign coffers as well. lastly, it's unclear how interactive representation will change our existing norms of representation. if you look at the big picture it could be that we are moving toward more of a communications-based model of representation. the communication -- that does not mean it is all or nothing that communication replaces discretion altogether. it does seem how a representative communicates his or her actions in response to feedback will become increasingly important over time. down the road this will have implications for the types of people who were elected to congress and who ascends to leadership roles and who ascends to positions of power within the institution.
i'm going to turn it over to jacob for closing remarks. >> there is future direction to this research beyond and including what colleen just said. one of the avenues is the potential for fake followers to receivesw a member information and the type of information they are receiving. of what factors influence the number of fake followers a senator might have so that ideology, the longer you're on twitter and the number of followers influence the potential for getting fake , might have on the ability to receive information and now you're receiving information that is relevant to you politically and policy was. as colleen hinted platform capabilities and content matters
especially when making decisions about the type of information you might be receiving on various platforms but also in terms of managing these platforms and what type of information you might post on them. some platforms are better for pictures and others are better for words. the type of information and resources necessary to cross post that material and make sure you have an appropriate message for an appropriate space are important considerations. that leads to the idea of how do you manage this. as this figure shows a plurality have adopted six or more social media platforms. -- those adopted more who adopted fewer might be .onsidered light users had he managed six platforms, let alone 12?
also how you have no platforms were only one member is today was last year? is an expectation amongst the american public that you are present on the social media platforms but finding that balance to managing platforms is a consideration that crs is considering and does play into interactivity. that concludes the formal part of our presentation but we are happy to have a discussion about this with you and thank you for being such a good audience. [applause] >> looking back at the research you're done on congressional ,ommunications pre-social media you find an awful lot of effort
was wasted. press secretaries put out release after release. ignored by the media, even the local media. a lot of members of congress -- it just never paid out for them. define what social media as well some members have a presence on social media but nobody was interested? >> is a variation of followers and there was some work that was done to show the distribution of the number of followers. i think with social media the members i really want to build a social media presence, they invest the resources to be up to do that. they either hire someone who is solely responsible for the member social media, one big resource you can invest in and some research done into how many offices have done that and it's growing. they get the advice from someone about -- just like anybody else
here if you're not a member of congress, how to build your platform and with the right mix of messaging is. some of it has to be personal. that makes will actually attract more followers. it's just like anything else. when members is to communicate somegh newsletters, members invested more time in the newsletters making them look very pretty and comprehensive sending them out more frequently because they felt like but was the medium of communication that they have to focus on. i don't think social media is really any different in that sense. , the power isa exponential. does not necessarily matter how many followers you have it who are your followers and what reach do you have for them retreating -- a re-tweeting?
one facebook post can go further than whatever a single individuals reach might be as a result of that and i think that should not be underplayed. ,ent out a press release newspaper picks it up or doesn't pick up that is pretty much it. .aybe it is on your website .ut now tweets exist forever they sometimes become popular long after you sent them and that reach is greater than could be in that static environment. >> a lot of energy put into drawing the line between what can be done with campaign funds and what can be done with public funds. have you done any exploring as to the future of that? drawing that line with social
media is almost impossible. >> a really good question. there is a stark division both in the law and the rules of house and senate for official funds for campaign purposes. the focus almost all of our effort on official facebook, twitter, other social media accounts to handle members and have been careful to exclude campaign accounts in almost all of the work we've done. there are other people doing work in the campaign room but i easiert is a little because the house and senate require that a member has a separate account for each campaign and for official offices. dividing those is not as difficult as you think. we started doing this in 2009 tweets. coded it wasn't compared to today.
today, when you look at those tweets the percentage of campaign tweets on official counts is virtually zero. to makeare very careful sure that a separate between the two entities. there can be bleed in between that. it's not something we have to focus on closely. we've kept that separate. that's how we done it. >> how long do you think it's going to be before this moves us from influencing a representational models to being a modality for referendums was going to be the first center that says on this particular for .>> we've not seen that yet
twitter it is so easy to post a poll. have you ever seen a member post a poll on twitter? >> i don't recall it. we don't see every tweak that technologye certainly exists to pull on facebook and twitter. >> at that point the gyroscopic history,this notion in the moynahan model, would be set aside. the representative is basically nothing more than a conduit or opinions andress judgment has moved its way out. i don't think we see that. i'm hesitant to say the communications-based model does not have judgment and it. we are saying this is a matter of tilting in one direction or the other.
more than we've seen in the past. members, evenk with the capacity, potential for social media, are geographically focused still. in order for that to happen i think there would have to be a mental shift within the membership that takes more than -- evenmbers and members who think of themselves as surrogates think of themselves as district or .tate-based you can see the potential for that to occur at some point. >> two quick questions. in an earlier chart distinction different types of tweets or , there wasou immediate category and a member promotion category so i was wondering if you can explain that. getting to the communication that is coming back to members,
you have to tweet from justin amosh. some reactions were angry face. do they treat the thumbs down and angry face the same or does the angry face means something else. the one wence was coded for individual member tweets things that direct .ollowers the member promotion for the committee tweets, instances where the official committee account tweeted something out to promote a member of the committee. so-and-so will be doing such and such or go see this thing congressman x is going to be doing so that is sort of the difference. >> it's hard to generalize on all members. the thumbs up for the thumbs
down i will say the congressional management foundation a year and a half ago an examination on social media in which they actually talked to staffers about the importance of social media and their respective offices. the results from that study was members took -- it took a lot of constituent males to move a member hundreds of hundreds of -- it was a lower threshold for responses, tweets or comes up or thumbs down on facebook or twitter because what jacob said earlier, the proliferation and the fact that those comments are public. everybody else can see them. when you send an e-mail to a member of congress that the private transaction. you are sending that member your opinion but nobody else sees it besides the member and staff are working on that issue. when you post something about a ,ember, promotional or critical
potentially the entire social media universe is able to see it so that ways and heavily and .hat is what cmf found >> it seems to me now more than ever in history it's possible to come and speak with your congressperson or your senator in person and people do that by the millions every year. so these tweets compared to people coming and really ,ace-to-face with initiative what do you say about that? dynamican interesting my important question my best face-to-face meetings will always be more important. there is a validity issue. -- twitter and facebook at least to provide
members with metrics that are not available outside the office to validate geolocation tags. you know someone might be constituent or might not be. you hear stores in the news. not technically sophisticated .nough knowing that you are talking to constituents versus talking to someone out there in the united states or great britain on the moon, you just don't know. pollrs could be moved by a but maybe they think about hated i know the these people are my people my geographic people or not? we don't know. this is all unfolding in real time. this brings up a secondary point. the house and senate have treated social media as in the attempt and regulation
differently. it goes to the issue of how to handle this as it's pulling out. the house has taken the position that everything is ok until we say it's not. the senate has taken the opposite position. we want to approve each social media platform for official use before senators use it. neither one is good or bad but it shows the different approaches that can be taken to that. >> concentration of ownership and traditional media has increased as of late. these forms of media become more dominant and important to politics is there a risk of influence? undue the algorithms behind what you see on your feet are generally opaque if not outright trade secrets. people an impact on willingness to give fines or sanctions to these entities.
the upsideints was of this is accessibility. more constituents visit members and ever before. you see that in high season and march and april on the hill also tourists coming in the summer. as a question of equality of access. who can afford to calm? who has the time? the resources to vehicle to do that? social media kind of kept therneath that, which is positive of it. what i was trying to say is we are getting rid of a lot of terriers between members and constituents. parties or formal groups, you don't have to necessarily join an environmental group anymore to make your opinion known about environmental issues to your member of congress. social media is wiping out that middleman. you're able to express yourself directly.
the technology companies, social media companies, they are the numeral makers. they're the ones saying how many characters you're try going to get or what are the limitations on facebook or what appears on your feet and what doesn't. on facebook, and what appears on your feet and what doesn't. so we have to be very, very careful. we are replacing one set of institutional factors for a difference that. that is where i think congress is starting to engage in understanding those rules that are being made and how that affects them right here in ithington dc, and how affects the economy and transactions all across the united states and the world. >> and just follow on your: salivation -- consolidation, we see facebook and twitter are the dominant players in the market. when something new rolls out and we like it, they develop their own. facebook live is a periscope out of business. twitter tried with vine, the short video clips, and realized
they could do that on twitter, so why would you want to do it .n next seconds -- six seconds there is an adaptation and adoption, and the potential is there for the consolidation media affect. but the nature also of the beast at the level. i have been indicated that we are out of time, so we want to thank the u.s. capital historical society for hosting this. thank you all for your questions and thank you for coming. >> thank you. [applause] >> so it is just left to me to wrap things up, and one of the most gratifying roles is left to me, which is to feel and express also for helping us organize not just this talk, but the entire series, and my
colleague, john haskell -- maybe dr. haskell, i am not sure, and the library of congress, these wonderful surroundings, both last weekend this week, but -- we will this week, but be right around the corner next week. i want to thank c-span and the voice of america for projecting what happened here to a wider audience, including into asia. very much appreciate that. we could not do any of this without my colleague, loren bouchard, who really takes care of all of us sight unseen. i want to thank you for joining thend for meeting us around corner next week. thank you again. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> today, several of supreme court justice nominee us former law clerks will talk about their time working with him and his approach to the law as adc circuit court of appeals judge. live coverage from the heritage foundation begins at noon eastern on c-span. you can also watch on c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio app. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on use activists address the u.s. conference of mayors. >> i can't explain the feelings you have during a school shooting. one thing i can relate it to, the feeling of anxiety, of ness, of not being
able to absolutely anything. there is only one other place that i felt that. the united states congress. it might sound like a funny remark, but it is no joke. i have spoken with legislators from across the board. senators, representatives, mayors, and not one single person is confident that one thing can be done about the 17 people who died in my school, and the many others who have died since. portions of the first annual resurgent gathering. speakers include republican strategist max pappas, and texas governor greg abbott. >> texas is facing an immigration crisis. we have 1000 people a day moving to the state of texas. you know, people talk about building a wall and we are fed up with the federal government doing its job -- not doing its job, so here is what texas is going to do. we are going to come out of our own budgets, our own pockets,
and build the wall with this difference. instead of building the wall on the border of texas and mexico, we will build the border on texas and new mexico so we can keep all the californians from coming to the state of texas. >> watch on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio app. sharehouse reporters their experiences in covering the presidency, from eisenhower to the present. john cochran, former nbc white house correspondent. and kristinons, walker, current white house news correspondent, participate in this event hosted by the association for education in journalism and mass communication. jennifer: so one of the things the president gets to do is invite people to come give a