About the recent debate on net neutrality. Later, School Safety concerns after last weeks shooting in parkland, florida. Members of the British Parliament were recently in the u. S. For a daylong hearing on fake news and the state of the media. This portion included representatives from cbs news, cnn, and the New York Times talking about some of the challenges facing News Organizations. It is just under 1. 5 hours. Welcome to the witnesses and to the final panel of todays evidence section. The final phase of todays to discuss some of the issues of the Tech Companies with academic experts. Off by asking members of the panel if they could give their view on an issue that is giving us cause for concern. Public uset consumption is increasingly moving out of a curated news space. The news bulletin, edited newspaper, or news website, and people are consuming news more and bite sized pieces that they discover and share via social media. Increasing numbers of people get their news by social media. Of the people in this country get their news from social media sites. What causes concern does that give you about news from your also from theand consumers point of feel whether they are getting a fair and balanced picture. If they are consuming a variety if theyre or exposed to the newsfeed on social media sites. , if you could give a perspective from your News Organization. Thisy wilson on one hand, is the reality of how people consume news and information. Wash 24 hours a day. All their waking hours. As a News Organization, we have to recognize that that is how people have become accustomed to consuming news. One of the things that is hard inside a News Organization is that people dont come to what we do with the same kind of intention that they did in the past. Howad naive notions as to completely they absorbed and read the material we wrote and how many articles they read. It may understand that be sufficient to read a sentence or two. Other times, people will go on their phone and read a two or 3000 word story. It is highly variable. We have declared that we have to remain a destination for our readers. Well we use these platforms as a way to expose people to the kind of journalism we do and attract newer audiences and so forth, we ultimately need to bring our most engaged readers ask to the times itself. Iter organizations find difficult to do that and consequently are much more dependent on how these platforms display their news and information. Become theffectively equivalent of the front page for most individuals. While News Organizations are still composing the individual stories, they are arranging and figuring out who sees what, in what order, and what time frame. Itthe earlier conversations, makes it very difficult to determine whether they are in the publishings ace or a purveyor of content that other people have produced. Clearly, through algorithms they are applying a level of judgment. Quite apart from the misinformation. , but thegets regulated right approach to that is, is typical in part because theres not a clear line between what constitutes news and other types of information. There is no particular, apart from libel and defamation laws, there is no regulation. Theres a spectrum of information going into the mix. It becomes difficult to separate out. In the quiet counsel of their offices they would be out of the News Businesses if they could be. You ask what scares them . In addition to regulation and possible antitrust action, it is also the prospect that what they have built is getting out of their control. If you look at how they score, google and facebook enjoy pretty good reputations. It is taking a hit. There are all sorts of unintended consequences they are having difficulty getting their hands around. The new yorks times is a major global news brand. Making the transition away from a printed newspaper to a digital is this. Looking at the breadth of those you represent, will we see a consolidation continue at pace . Where they have limited local news . I think there are several challenges David ChavernDavid Chavern i think there are several challenges. Where people attach their attention is limited. That being said, the real fear, we talk about fake news as a aboutal story, we talk various issues on a national scale. The future of fake news will be a local phenomenon. Withill have people curiosity and interest in their community and there will be insufficient reliable sources locally. Crazyill fill that is bloggers and conspiracy theorists who have ideas of what is happening in the local counsel ors school board. Or school board. When looking to the future, one of the challenges is as we move into digital consumption of news to a greater degree, do the local News Organizations have the resources to build and optimize and connect with their audiences digitally . As compared to the New York Times or other national. Layers will local News Organizations have that same capacity . Theres a lot of concern about that. On the local news fund, these people are attached to their communities. That should be an advantage. It is. The question for the future will be capacity. Will they be able to make the investments to make this digital jump . How will they have this relationship with the other distributors with their distributors . In the past, you literally handed a printed news product to your audience. It was the ultimate direct relationship. This is now disintermediated. There is somebody, notably google and facebook, who stand between there readers. In the u. S. , the News Business has not been regulated. Its that First Amendment think we have. But google and facebook are our regulators. There are rules about regulation and distribution. Continuingwill be a challenge for local News Organizations to figure out how to work their way through this disintermediated delivery, for want of a better term. They had the capacity to make this technological jump. From acollins forecasting point of view, there are two things that follow up on this. In america this last week, firstly do you feel that the key issue will be one of trust . With things like augmented reality giving people the opportunity and Technical Capability to create fake stories and fake films. There is an opportunity for traditional broadcasters to beat the more trusted gatekeepers. Fakedwill be a lot more images as well. Forecastel that the needs to do more to reach their audiences . Facebook news channel with 2 million viewers. Have they gotten lucky as an early adopter or is that model difficult to replicate . I think between news and television, we have in our miss click rates all through the cbs. Com all day and all night. Hasy journalistic outlet tried to merge video, audio, and publishing together. To do it credibly. To some of the earlier questions i have been in this business since 1984. When i worked in the community newspaper, it was the Community Talking to itself. Its values, its perspective. There was one choice in that community. That was the newspaper. Then the local television stations. The choices now are all over the place. We exist in a world where are eating junk food. They dont think its junk food. They think it is spinach. They are making a conscious decision to say no, what i was being fed maybe from cbs or nbc, or the New York Times was the junk food and what i am finding alternatively is my good food. Mr. Acknowledge that that separation from our journalistic organizations that was probably built on a foundation of having has gone away. We have two compete over credibility and trust. That is in hourbyhour and day by day pursuit. News or nothing at cbs nbc or abc about someone who mashes together video in a dishonest way, except broadcast that which is legitimate. But there is a slippery slope here, but theres something that media organizations have to take account for. When there is a hurricane or a tornado or a snowstorm, we will take content off of facebook and twitter the people have shot themselves and put it on the news. Because we were not there. They were. We get it for free. We may put eight teeny microscopic line in there that credits the source, but we are taking content and turning it into journalism at no cost. We dont have to pay for a crew come of dont pay for an assignment editor or any of the loaded cost we used to pay for to create our own broadcast product. We are part of this dynamic. I think it behooves everyone in the industry to understand and own up to some of that. That we are compromised commercially. There are certain ways we profit or gain from all this content that we transmute into journalism. I have a slogan i use all the time. Content is content and journalism is journalism. They are not interchangeable. The other is, as far as news consumers whenever i give speeches on this i was leave them with this thought. From the time he woke up until the time you went to sleep everything you read and consumed leaves you pleased and happy and verified, you are doing it wrong. [laughter] i would echo that. I think the greatest single concern i would have with all the big pluses identified with the increase in the availability of news and the sources of news and the friday of news is that it has enabled people to create their own media bubble. Their only reading material consistent with their belief. Newsencourages fake because within that sphere, anything consistent where we that terribles or thing. It all gets thrown in there. My concern is that you dont get readthe docket of provocative things because you disagree with them. To otherto be exposed things other than what you and all your friends think. I seews and politics and this in the u. K. , even from the u. S. It is almost become like supporting a team. You did a much are in one camp or the other. Of notople are accused being a true supporter. Youre not being devoted enough because they can see some aspect of the other persons argument. How is it got to this . How did we get to the situation where you have to sign up for 25 Different Things because you probably think either this or that . Most normal human beings dont do that. I think it is really unhealthy if we create a News Consumption environment where everything that comes in is consistent with with got to get in or get out. Ithink of all of the concerns may have come that is one of the primary ones. You may appoint at the start of this that is very important. Faking stuff to look like really good stuff gets easier all the time. The technology is much cheaper, the programming is much cheaper and it would be very easy for someone with rudimentary skills to provide something which your average layperson wont know the difference. If i could interject one thought on this, its kind of a gloomy topic. With the proximity of people and their own cell phones. It has fundamentally changed. Ews organizations if there was a Police Involved iooting, and i wasnt there, was dependent upon the orientation to the facts, circumstances, timing and evidence provided by the source. Most responsible, but most potentially liable, the local police department. Withresence of citizens their own independent means by which to video what happened has transformed not only that conversation but the relationship between what happened and what others who are not defensive, possibly, about what happened say happened. It is fundamentally altered in a positive way, not just the communitys understanding of what happened, but journalists who are trying to figure out thats one area that i would like interject has changed and changed for the better. Anotherdox theres side to that too. The pressure being placed on News Organizations to get news out fast. Were seeing examples in our country where people got it wrong. Its not something you recognize. Absolutely. T i can give you an example. After the Boston Marathon incident there was a tremendous amount of information by citizens. On that fateful friday night or there was a successful effort to find and apprehend the suspect. Things were appearing on social media based on what somebody heard on a police scanner. We were very cautious at cbs. A lot of other News Organizations were cautious, but it was out there. When it is out there, then there andhis deeply philosophical also highly pressurized conversation. What do we do with that . Are we close to verifying it . What is our standard of verifying it . I kept counseling my own network internally, i have listened to police scanners. I did it for six years. Whatever you hear from one cop on the beat is relevant, but it is also a very thin understanding of what is going on in the totality. We have to be careful. These circumstances create enormous pressure. Much greater pressure tonight experienced in my broadcasting career. Part of this continuum between what is believable and what is hyper pressurized is the ability to say i am prepared as a News Organization to be second and write. Im never prepared to be first and wrong. Damian collins thank you. Julie elliott. Julie elliott thank you. I am particularly concerned with the referendum. The organized and not organized. The not organized is very much what you were talking about, where people reinforce their own beliefs and they retweet or repost and they reinforce, but if we can go to the organized first, you open and journalism a long time. What do you think has really changed in the last couple of years . Does it feel worse . Is it that we simply know that the interference is there and was probably always there . What do you think . Let me just start with the reaction. One of the good things is that you can consume a lot. When i was growing up you have the paper on the driveway and halfhour news and that was the news. That was all your window into the world. I have access to so much. But listen, well have crazy relatives that over the course of dinner have weird conspiracy theories and lives and men didnt go to the moon, and whatever the theory was. You knew that information was different than what landed on the driveway. It came from a different place one official and one not professional. One of the digital challenges is that it is all put into a blender and fed to you in similar ways. It puts a tremendous onus on the reader to differentiate. I think there are insufficient indicators to leaders about to readers about what is good stuff. I think it provides a tremendous opportunity for people who want to manipulate the public. To use these digital pipes to feed out garbage news. Can powerful type of they news is not aliens have come down, it is something that is somewhat off. The people wish were true but feeds their biases. They can feed a bunch of information that, unless you are a careful reader you dont understand that is coming from a bad place. I think it has opened up an opportunity for people to manipulate the public much more than in the past. There are things we can do about that i getting back to indicating more what is Good Journalism and what isnt. But i will pause and let other folks respond. From my perspective the biggest is targeting. I think that is even more problematic than the spectrum of information that is out there and the sheer volume of information. We have quite a good understanding on the commercial side is to help powerful those tools are. We spend a lot of money on facebook. It is the most efficient way for us to acquire subscribers. It can be used in a variety of ways. Distinguishant to between what is showing up in peoples newsfeeds and in search. Is in thed, which control of these platforms as they break their algorithms and fine tune the difference between social connection and authority versus the ability of those who pay on those platforms to target particular audiences. There, as you get into conversations around potential solutions, i think starting at the level of transparency individuals having control over their own data, that is one important area. Without that, so long as these platforms are in complete theresy control the risk that regulation will have unintended consequences. Damian collins i think to your point, it has been a fascinating day listening to all the key issues youve got. I dont envy you. If i would respectfully suggest from where i sit, i think nothing is more fundamental than the sanctity of elections and the idea that elections could be interfered with by third parties. More than a dozen years at the bbc, i have quite a bit of experience with the u. K. Elections. People,tation of the and the u. S. That has enabled for all of its flaws, a fair template which all broadcasters and major news organizers need to subscribe to. The other is a technical thing. Because of the number of constituencies, there are a lot of small majorities in the u. K. [laughter] if you look at the number of constituencies and the u. K. , there are less than a thousand or 1500 votes. Those constituencies are enormously honorable. If people follow the election by social media, people who have a desire for an outcome decide to as you havearea, heard it is very easy to get geospecific information so you can make sure this story hits all of your users in a constituency. Story, an immigration everybody who might have an interest in immigration in that area gets hit with this wave of stories. There has to be some kind of defense to that. The Media Companies themselves are faced with an enormous challenge. , whatever theyes may be. They have big challenges here. Theyve grown quickly. I am so pathetic to that challenge. We know that they have great geotargeting technology. Some will be a question of employing people. If you hire some local journalists, and a lot of local journalists got laid off. If you hire them for an election to check this out. Is there something not right and we should be taking it down . It is almost worth making a priority of the election, certainly in the u. S. , the idea that russia interfered with the election is a profound issue. With all the other stuff and chatter that goes on, to keep coming back to the idea that everyone is concerned that may have happened. That is where i would start trying to get my arms around this. Up the rations.