[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FANNING THE FLAMES: DISINFORMATION AND
EXTREMISM IN THE MEDIA
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-8
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-630 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
PETER WELCH, Vermont TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
TONY CARDENAS, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 4
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Witnesses
Soledad O'Brien, Anchor, ``Matter of Fact,'' Chief Executive
Officer, Soledad O'Brien Productions........................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Answers to submitted questions............................... 156
Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The
George Washington University Law School........................ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Answers to submitted questions............................... 158
Kristin Danielle Urquiza, Cofounder, Marked By COVID............. 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 162
Emily Bell, Leonard Tow Professor of Journalism and Director, Tow
Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University............. 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Answers to submitted questions............................... 164
Submitted Material
Letters of February 22, 2001, from Ms. Eshoo and Mr. McNerney to
John T. Stanley, Chief Executive Officer, AT&T, Inc., et al.,
submitted by Mr. Latta\1\
Letter of February 23, 2021, from Brenda Victoria Castillo,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Hispanic Media
Coalition, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr.
Cardenas....................................................... 115
Blog post of October 21, 2020, ``The FCC's Authority to Interpret
Section 230 of the Communications Act,'' by Thomas M. Johnson,
Jr., FCC.gov, submitted by Ms. Eshoo........................... 118
Article of February 23, 2021, ``Broadcasters combat
misinformation with a focus on the facts,'' by Gordon H. Smith,
The Hill, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................... 124
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Mrs. Rodgers, et al., to
Jessica Rosenworcel, Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications
Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................. 126
----------
\1\ The letters have been retained in committee files and are available
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/HHRG-117-
IF16-20210224-SD002.pdf.
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia
Attorney General, to John T. Stanley, Chief Executive Officer,
AT&T, Inc., submitted by Mr. Latta............................. 129
Article of February 24, 2021, ``The political effort to limit
free speech attacks our own values,'' by Jonathan Turley, The
Hill, submitted by Mr. Latta................................... 131
Letter of October 16, 2017, from Ms. Eshoo to Ajit Pai, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission, et al., submitted by Mrs.
Rodgers........................................................ 134
Letter of April 2, 2020, from Mr. Pallone and Mr. Doyle to Ajit
Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by
Mrs. Rodgers................................................... 136
Article of June 14, 2017, ``Hodgkinson letters: `I have never
said life sucks, only the policies of the Republicans,'''
Belleville News-Democrat, submitted by Mr. Scalise............. 138
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Christopher Ruddy, Chief
Executive Officer, Newsmax Media, Inc., to Mr. Pallone, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Latta......................................... 154
FANNING THE FLAMES: DISINFORMATION AND EXTREMISM IN THE MEDIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:33 p.m.,
via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Mike Doyle
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Veasey, McEachin, Soto, Rice, Eshoo, Butterfield, Welch,
Schrader, Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex
officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Scalise,
Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Mullin, Walberg,
Carter, Duncan, Curtis, and Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Schakowsky, Dingell, Trahan,
and Burgess.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Parul
Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer Epperson, Counsel; Waverly
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief
Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry
Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Professional Staff
Member; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Policy
Analyst; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk;
Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; William
Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo, Minority
Financial and Office Administrator; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff
Director; Sean Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter Kielty,
Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services
Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel; Kate
O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health;
Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and
Commerce, Energy, and Environment; Olivia Shields, Minority
Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy
Director; and Everett Winnick, Minority Director of Information
Technology.
Mr. Doyle. The subcommittee will now come to order. Today
the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a
hearing entitled ``Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and
Extremism in the Media.''
This hearing is a continuation of work that this
subcommittee did last Congress, examining the spread of
disinformation on social media and the deadly and dangerous
effect it is having on our Nation and on our democracy.
We expect to hold another hearing on March 25th with the
CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to further discuss these
issues.
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conferencing.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone
each time you wish to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the
email address we have provided the staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
First, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
appearing before us today.
Today we are talking about media outlets, such as cable
news, broadcast news, and radio, and the role they play in
disseminating disinformation and fomenting extremism. My hope
is that our witnesses can help this subcommittee understand the
current media ecosystem, how we got here, and potential
solutions.
I doubt that any Members here are naive about the media.
This is the industry that coined the term ``If it bleeds, it
leads.'' But to the degree to which Americans have become awash
in disinformation and the profound events that our country has
recently gone through require examination and evaluation of
this industry.
This week marks a grim milestone for our Nation, as a half
a million Americans have died from COVID-19. That matches the
American death toll in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II
combined. This pandemic has touched almost every aspect of
American life and taken so many friends and loved ones from us,
including from one of the witnesses here today, who tragically
lost her father.
The real tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way. It
didn't have to be this bad. But some of the media sought to
downplay this virus from the beginning. They refused to
acknowledge how deadly it was, they criticized stay-at-home
orders, they mocked social distancing they told audiences that
they didn't need to wear masks. All of these were
scientifically validated steps that could have saved lives and
prevented so much anguish and grief.
In the midst of this pandemic we also saw the rise of the
Stop the Steal movement, fomented by former President Trump and
propagated by members of the media, that sought to dispute the
outcome of our elections and overturn our democratic process.
As we all know, this led directly to the horrific events of
January 6th, the attack on our Capitol and our democracy by
insurrectionists motivated by former President Trump. Five
lives were lost that day, and more have been lost since. A
Capitol Police Officer was murdered. Others were savagely
attacked, beaten, and called vile racial epithets. All of our
lives were put at risk, as was the Vice President's.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and
the freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech encourages us
to ask tough questions about what is going on in the media,
what is motivating the tidal wave of disinformation that is
putting the lives of so many Americans and, ultimately, our
democracy at risk.
Partisanship and polarization in the media has been
building for years. But these more recent events reflect a--
quite a frightening escalation. As Ms. O'Brien points out in
her testimony, media companies have increasingly set aside
journalistic standards to chase audience share and higher
profits. Ms. Bell's testimony discusses the decline of local
media and local newspapers, once the lifeblood of our democracy
and now rapidly accelerated by the financial hardships of
COVID.
These changes have given rise to national media entities
that are more focused on the kind of tactics we see from social
media companies. They engage their viewers by enraging them and
further dividing us and our Nation.
We have also seen the rise of news as entertainment, where
the claims of anchors and commentators are likened to
performance art. When they are challenged in court, the lawyers
from their own networks even claim that no reasonable person
could believe these people are speaking the truth or reporting
facts.
When truth becomes a commodity to be traded upon for
profit, and facts and consequences don't matter to those who
report them, our democracy is undermined. It is the
responsibility of this subcommittee to hold these institutions
to a higher standard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
today.
Today, we are talking about media outlets such as cable
news, broadcast news, and radio--and the role they play in
disseminating disinformation and fomenting extremism.
My hope is that our witnesses can help this subcommittee
better understand the current media ecosystem, how we got here,
and potential solutions.
I doubt any of the Members here are naive about the media--
this is the industry that coined the term ``if it bleeds it
leads.''
But the degree to which Americans have become awash in
disinformation--and the profound events that our country has
recently gone through--require examination and evaluation of
this industry.
This week marks a grim milestone for our Nation as half a
million Americans have died from COVID-19. That matches the
American death toll in Vietnam, Korea, and World War II
combined.
This pandemic has touched almost every aspect of American
life and taken so many friends and loved ones from us,
including from one of the witnesses here today who tragically
lost her father.
The real tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way--it
didn't have to be this bad.
But some in the media sought to downplay this virus from
the beginning.
They refused to acknowledge how deadly it was.
They criticized stay-at-home orders, they mocked social
distancing, and they told their audiences that they didn't need
to wear masks.
All of these were scientifically validated steps that could
have saved lives and prevented so much anguish and grief.
In the midst of this pandemic, we also saw the rise of the
``stop the steal'' movement--fomented by former President Trump
and propagated by members of the media that sought to dispute
the outcome of our elections and overturn our democratic
process.
As we all know, this led directly to the horrific events of
January 6th and the attack on our Capitol and our democracy by
insurrectionists motivated by former President Trump.
Five lives were lost that day--and more have been lost
since.
A Capitol police officer was murdered--others were savagely
attacked, beaten, and called vile racial epithets. All our
lives were put at risk--as was the Vice President's.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and
freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech encourages us to
ask tough questions about what is going on in the media--and
what is motivating the tidal wave of disinformation that is
putting the lives of so many Americans--and ultimately our
democracy--at risk.
Partisanship and polarization in the media has been
building for years, but these more recent events reflect a
frightening escalation.
As Ms. O'Brien points out in her testimony, media companies
have increasingly set aside journalistic standards to chase
audience share and higher profits.
Ms. Bell's testimony discusses the decline of local media
and local newspapers--once the lifeblood of our democracy--now
rapidly accelerated by the financial hardships of COVID.
These changes have given rise to national media entities
that are more focused on the kind of tactics we see from social
media companies--they engage their viewers by enraging them and
further dividing us--and our Nation.
We've also seen the rise of news as entertainment--where
the claims of anchors and commentators are likened to
performance art. When they are challenged in court, the lawyers
from their own networks even claim that no reasonable person
could believe these people are speaking the truth or reporting
facts.
When truth becomes a commodity--to be traded upon for
profit--and facts and consequences don't matter to those who
report them, our democracy is undermined. It is the
responsibility of this subcommittee to hold these institutions
to a higher standard.
Thank you, and I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, and I look forward to the testimony
of our witnesses, and I yield the remainder of my time to my
friend and colleague, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very
important hearing today.
Let me put it bluntly: Misinformation is killing Americans
and damaging our democracy. We have to examine how conspiracies
and lies convince people to dismiss public health measures and
refuse lifesaving vaccines. This is not about left versus
right; this is about life and death.
Similarly, the January 6th insurrection was built on a
foundation of lies about mail-in ballots, voting machines, and
election results. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from
enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech, and I am an
ardent supporter of it. It does not, however, stop us from
examining the public health and democratic implications of
misinformation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important
hearing today.
Let me put it bluntly: misinformation is killing Americans
and damaging our democracy. We must examine how conspiracies
and lies convince people to dismiss public health measures and
refuse life-saving vaccines. This is not about left versus
right. This is about life and death.
Similarly, the January 6th insurrection was built on a
foundation of lies about mail-in ballots, voting machines, and
election results.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws
abridging the freedom of speech, and I'm an ardent supporter of
it. It does not, however, stop us from examining the public
health and democratic implications of misinformation.
So I thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this very this very
important hearing today, and I yield back. I also thank the
witnesses who are with us today and am anxious to hear from
them.
Ms. Eshoo. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
very important hearing today, and I yield back.
I also thank the witnesses who are with us today. I am
anxious to hear from them.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back, the Chair yields
back. The Chair recognizes my good friend and colleague, Mr.
Latta, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Communications
and Technology, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
[Pause.]
Bob, you need to unmute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. There we go. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, for
today's hearing. I appreciate you yielding me the time.
And I also want to thank our witnesses who are appearing
before us today on this hearing focused on disinformation and
extremism in the media.
While disinformation, misinformation, and extremism in the
media are all serious issues that this subcommittee should be
examining in a bipartisan way, unfortunately today's hearing is
not about that. Earlier this week several of my colleagues sent
a disturbing letter to private companies asking them questions
that imply that these companies should stop carrying certain
news content.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter that letter into the record.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letters have been retained in committee files and are
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/
HHRG-117-IF16-20210224-SD002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Latta. I thank my friend.
As the title of the hearing indicates, the majority's
intent behind today's hearing is to fan the flames of silencing
certain viewpoints in America by trying to suppress and censor
speech, a concept that has the potential to destroy our
democracy. This is deeply troubling. It should be deeply
troubling to everybody here today.
With this goal at hand, we are embarking upon a dangerous
path of using this committee to attack the foundation of fact,
and further diminish trust in journalism.
The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Rather than
suppressing speech and viewpoints that we don't agree with, we
should be encouraging more speech and conversations between one
another. Sadly, it appears we are doubling down on encouraging
the cancel culture of the left, instead of identifying
bipartisan solutions to encourage and support factual local or
national news.
We are all facing unprecedented challenges in this country,
which includes work to combat a once-in-a-century pandemic.
There has never been a more important time for journalism to be
more accurate and reliable, having reliable news sources that
report factual content that can even be a matter of life and
death. The damage done to our democracy by further dividing our
Nation and ignoring the patently false and inaccurate
information from many media outlets cannot be understated.
Before I close, I would like to bring to light just one of
the most recent examples we have seen in the press concerning
the attacks on the Capitol and Capitol grounds on January the
6th. Republicans and Democrats, including myself, have
condemned the events of January the 6th. It is disturbing, to
say the least, to insinuate responsibility for the mob violence
that took place that day lies only with the media and not with
the individuals who carried out these actions and committed
crimes. That is flat-out wrong.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good afternoon, and welcome to all of our witnesses here
today for a hearing focused on disinformation and extremism in
the media.
While disinformation, misinformation, and extremism in the
media are all serious issues this committee should be examining
in a bipartisan way, unfortunately, today's hearing is not
about that.
Earlier this week, several of my colleagues sent a
disturbing letter to private companies asking them questions
that imply that these companies should stop carrying certain
news content.
[Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter this
letter into the record sent by Representatives Eshoo and
McNerney.]
As the title of the hearing indicates, the Majority's
intent behind today's hearing is to fan the flames of silencing
certain viewpoints in America by trying to suppress and censor
speech, a concept that has the potential to destroy our
democracy. This is deeply troubling and should be deeply
troubling to everyone here today. With this goal at hand, we
are embarking upon a dangerous path of using this committee to
attack the foundation of fact and further diminish trust in
journalism.
The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Rather than
suppressing speech and viewpoints we don't agree with, we
should be encouraging more speech and conversations between one
another. Sadly, it appears we are doubling down on encouraging
the cancel culture of the left instead of identifying
bipartisan solutions to encourage and support factual local and
national news.
We are all facing unprecedented challenges in this country,
which includes work to combat a once in a century pandemic.
There has never been a more important time for journalism to be
accurate and reliable. Having reliable news sources that report
factual content can even be a matter of life and death.
The damage done to our democracy by further dividing our
Nation and ignoring the patently false and inaccurate
information coming from media outlets cannot be understated.
Before I close, I'd like to bring to light just one of the
most recent examples we have seen in the press concerning the
attacks on the Capitol and Capitol grounds on January 6th:
Republicans and Democrats, including myself, have condemned the
events of January 6th. It is disturbing, to say the least, to
insinuate responsibility for the mob violence that took place
that day lies only with media, but not with the individuals who
carried out those actions and committed crimes. That is flat
out wrong.
We should be here today to discuss ways to combat
disinformation, and the responsibility media outlets have when
real-world violence occurs as a result of rhetoric.
We should also recognize that local journalism--which is
trusted by the American people more than every other type of
media--is the only real antidote to disinformation and
extremism. If the majority were interested in having a
thoughtful conversation about policies that would support local
broadcasters and their ability to report real, honest news,
perhaps that would be a better use of time.
But despite making bipartisan progress last Congress for
breaking down these barriers, my colleagues have made the
following very clear: Instead of continuing those bipartisan
efforts to improve media diversity and restore trust in
journalism, they would rather use their official positions to
silence opposing views and settle political scores, all because
they disdain President Trump.
I find it hard to believe, Chairman Doyle, that you would
consider legislating in this space. While the letters sent and
hearings held on this topic flirt with the First Amendment,
certainly I cannot imagine any legislative remedy that would
not implicate the First Amendment. I would urge caution before
going further down this dangerous path and return to the
principles we have long shared on ensuring a free press.
Mr. Latta. And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
yield the balance of my time to our--Mr. Scalise from
Louisiana.
Mr. Scalise. Well, I thank my friend from Ohio for
yielding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing,
and our witnesses, as well.
And clearly, we have all been very vocal in denouncing the
events that happened on January 6th. It is a clear example of
not only mob violence but also how political discourse can get
out of control. But for anybody to just try to suggest that
discourse started getting out of control on January 6th would
be disingenuous when you look at where we have gotten and how
far this has come.
I want to take you back to June 14th, 2017, a day that a
gunman walked onto a baseball field and shot at over a dozen
Members of Congress, including myself. There has been a lot of
investigation into it. The FBI did a report. The gunman was
motivated by hypercharged rhetoric that he was hearing from the
left, from prominent elected officials, as well as media
personalities.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, there is a report that the FBI did
where they included some of the writings of the gunman, where
he talks specifically about the people who motivated him and
inspired him to commit this shooting, which would have been
very deadly, if he was successful, without the bravery and
heroism of Capitol Police.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that this be entered
into the record, which is the FBI--some of the excerpts from
his writings.
Now with that, Mr. Chairman, I enter that not to say that I
blame those people that he mentions for his motivation. I say
this to let you know that I don't blame those other people, I
blame the shooter. The shooter is the one who should be held
accountable. And I am very, very clear about that. But it is an
example that we all need to be aware of our rhetoric and can
all be doing a better job of toning down the rhetoric.
But we also need to call it out where we see it, not just
on the other side of the aisle but on both sides. Just as I
called out January 6th activities, I called out the violence I
saw over the summer, when, through hypercharged rhetoric,
people were burning down cities, were killing cops, killing
other people. Let's be consistent in calling it out, not trying
to suggest disingenuously that it only comes from one side of
the political spectrum. Let's be fair and recognize we can all
do a better job of encouraging the rhetoric to be toned down,
and we all need to call out political violence wherever we see
it, because it is not acceptable in America from the left or
the right.
With that I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
Just to inform Members, a vote has been called. We are not
going to recess at all during votes. So, as Members that are--
have some time before they ask questions, they want to go down
and take their votes, and we will just proceed.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me speak for
myself and hope--and also for all Democrats--and say that we
are all staunch defenders of the First Amendment and its
mandate that Congress make no law abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press. The First Amendment prohibits us from
passing laws that inappropriately limit speech, even when it is
controversial or even partisan.
But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the spread of
misinformation that causes public harm. Putting a spotlight on
the issue and having an open dialogue is exactly what the
Founding Fathers envisioned, because it may help us solve a
very dangerous problem. And we owe it to our constituents and
to our democracy to examine how and why disinformation is being
aired on traditional media and social media.
And that means we must ask uncomfortable questions, like
whether these media outlets, for example, have an incentive to
air extreme conspiratorial programming or content and how
journalists can help each other find ways to cover
controversial topics in a way that doesn't undermine our
democratic structure and health. And there are no easy answers,
but we have to, obviously, try to find them.
In my opinion, there are too many traditional media outlets
that have yet to seriously wrestle with these questions. Very
few have acknowledged their role in spreading deadly
misinformation, and some have tried to self-correct, but only
after the damage has been done or only after faced with public
backlash or legal action.
So this debate, in my view, that you are having, Mr.
Chairman, today is our best hope for addressing one of the
challenges confronting our country. And I hope that we can have
a smart and sensible discussion today, because there just is so
much at stake.
Now, going back to the assault on the Capitol on January 6,
it was an abhorrent attempt to overturn a free and fair
election. And there was months of disinformation about the
presidential election results that helped flame that attack.
I understand when our whip and Mr. Latta say that, you
know, that they have all condemned what happened on January 6,
and I respect that, and of course I, you know, still think
about you, Steve, and what happened to you at that game, and
your injury, and your remarkable recovery. But my point is that
we still have to look at these incidents and see what brought
them about, and what role the media played in causing these
kinds of incidents. It doesn't mean that, just because they
occurred and we say that they are terrible and that they
shouldn't have happened, that we don't look into this.
And the problem is that we have this daily--and, in some
cases, deadly--dose of disinformation and extremist content
that is being amplified by some of our most longstanding media
sources. It can be broadcast, it can be cable, it could be
radio. And I just think that this disinformation and extremism
is a threat to the country, both collectively and individually.
And it is not partisan.
[Audio malfunction.] Vice President Pence, individually--
they had the gallows set up out there for him, our Republican
Vice President.
So disinformation has undoubtedly contributed to the rapid
spread of COVID-19, as well. And 500,000 Americans have died
without regard to whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
Last summer we examined the role of social media in
spreading extreme content and dangerous disinformation.
However, our media ecosystem involves both social media and
traditional media outlets that are part of this vicious cycle
of reinforcing conspiracy theories. So, despite the rise of
social media, we know that the majority of Americans get their
news primarily from TV or radio. And over the past year we have
seen some of these outlets air programming that downplayed the
seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, peddled ineffective
treatments, mocked effective precautionary measures. Chairman
Doyle mentioned this.
And there are consequences to the constant airing of
misinformation or false news. Some have tragically lost their
lives because they relied on disinformation about COVID-19,
including the father of one of the witnesses today. And for
months some of these outlets aired programming that falsely
claimed the presidential election was stolen. We lost five
lives that day as a result of the attack on the Capitol.
Hundreds of people injured as a result of the Stop the Steal
propaganda campaign that some of these media outlets
encouraged, and which ultimately led to the Capitol assault.
So--and only after this violence did one broadcaster recognize
the role that his program played and asked its on-air
personalities to stop calling the election stolen.
So I just think there is a lot here that we have to look
into. Let's try to do this in a smart and sensible way.
And I do appreciate, Chairman Doyle, the fact that you are
having this today. I think it is very important.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Let me start by saying we're all staunch defenders of the
First Amendment and its mandate that ``Congress make no law
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' The First
Amendment prohibits us from passing laws that inappropriately
limit speech--even when it is controversial or overly partisan.
But that does not mean that we should ignore the spread of
misinformation that causes public harm.
Putting a spotlight on the issue and having an open
dialogue is exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned
because it may help us solve a very dangerous problem. We owe
it to our constituents and our democracy to examine how and why
disinformation is being aired on traditional media and social
media.
That means we must ask uncomfortable questions. Like
whether these media outlets, for example, have an incentive to
air extreme conspiratorial programming or content. And, how
journalists can help each other find ways to cover
controversial topics in a way that doesn't undermine our
democratic structure and health. There are no easy answers, but
we must try to find them.
In my opinion, too many traditional media outlets have yet
to seriously wrestle with these questions. Very few have
acknowledged their role in spreading deadly disinformation.
Some have tried to self-correct, but only after the damage has
been done, or only after faced with public backlash or legal
action.
This debate--in my view--is our best hope for addressing
one of the challenges confronting our country. I hope that we
can have a smart and sensible discussion today because there is
so much at stake.
Months of disinformation about the Presidential election
results helped fan the flames for the attack on the Capitol on
January 6--an abhorrent attempt to overturn a free and fair
election.
For the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has threatened the
American people's physical, emotional, and economic health, and
these threats have been exacerbated by ongoing disinformation
about the pandemic.
The daily, and in some cases deadly, dose of disinformation
and extremist content is often amplified by some of our most
longstanding media sources: broadcast and cable television and
broadcast radio.
Disinformation and extremism is a threat to our Nation--
both collectively and individually--but it is not partisan. The
insurrectionists at the Capitol targeted Vice President Pence
individually and our democracy collectively. Disinformation has
undoubtedly contributed to the rapid spread of COVID-19 and
500,000 Americans have died without regard to whether they are
Republicans or Democrats.
Last summer, we examined the role of social media in
spreading extreme content and dangerous disinformation.
However, our media ecosystem involves both social media and
traditional media outlets, that are often part of a vicious
cycle of reinforcing conspiracy theories and disinformation.
Despite the rise of social media, surveys indicate that a
majority of Americans get their news primarily from television
or radio programming.
Over the past year we have seen some of these outlets air
programming that downplayed the seriousness of the COVID-19
pandemic, peddled ineffective treatments, and mocked effective
precautionary measures. There are consequences to the constant
airing of misinformation and false news. Some have tragically
lost their lives because they relied on disinformation about
COVID-19, including the father of one of our witnesses here
today.
For months, some of these outlets aired programming that
falsely claimed the Presidential election had been stolen. Five
lives were lost, and over a hundred injured, as a result of the
``Stop The Steal'' propaganda campaign that some media outlets
encouraged, and which ultimately led to the Capitol
Insurrection. Only after this violence, did one broadcaster
recognize the role that its programming had played, and asked
its on-air personalities to stop claiming the election was
stolen.
Mr. Pallone. I just realized that I was supposed to yield
to Jerry, and now I didn't.
Jerry, I am sorry. I will have to make it up to you
somehow. I am sorry. I didn't realize----
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I will hold you to that
promise.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Mr. Doyle. OK, the gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you very much, Chairman Pallone and
Chairman Doyle. In all my time on this committee, there has
never been a more obvious direct attack on the First Amendment,
despite what has been said.
I want to be very clear: Condemning the January 6th attack
and upholding truth and facts, it is a shared, bipartisan goal.
Unfortunately, that is not what this hearing is about. If the
majority was really interested in a meaningful dialogue, you
wouldn't schedule a hyperpartisan hearing to shame and blame.
You wouldn't be sending letters pressuring private companies to
block conservative media outlets.
I am not only disappointed in this hearing, I am deeply
troubled by it. Every journalist, from MSNBC and CNN to The New
York Times, should be concerned by the majority's actions. And
anyone who values free speech and a free press should be
worried.
Elected officials using their platform to pressure private
companies to censor media outlets they disagree with? That
sounds like actions from the Chinese Communist Party, not duly-
elected representatives of the United States Congress. Here we
cherish free speech and a free, independent press. We believe
in dialogue and in the battle of ideas. Rather than censure and
silence constitutionally protected speech, the answer is more
speech. That is the American way.
And surely, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, you agree
with me. You have once believed that--you stated that you
believed threats against broadcasters for airing legally
protected speech to be illegal. Less than a year ago you sent a
letter to the FCC decrying attempts to censor or interfere with
broadcasters' discretion to air legally protected content.
I would ask you to take a look at this letter. And I ask
unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Rodgers. That letter, it says--and I quote--``At a
time when autocratic governments around the world are using the
coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to suppress press freedoms,
we must reaffirm--not undermine--America's commitment to a free
press.''
So what has changed? As you once put it, ``To stay silent
could undermine the First Amendment.'' So let's come together,
and let's make sure that we do not have a censorship campaign
based upon political ideology or someone saying something you
disagree with. That is not the standard we want to set. Under
your new approach, a lot of media would cease to exist.
Should CNN still be carried after hosting Governor Cuomo?
For months media lauded him and legitimized his lethal response
to COVID-19--he even won an Emmy--for his use of TV to spread
misinformation. How do we know it was misinformation? Because
of a balance of networks that pursued investigative journalism.
Should MSNBC be carried after years of pushing the false
Russia collusion narrative? Thanks to independent journalists
and a robust free press, we have learned their reporting was
false.
Does your new standard stop with cable news, or should it
be applied to social media?
It is un-American when you are setting control--for you to
redefine for yourselves what is true.
Do you think Republican Members of Congress agree with all
the content on media? No.
Have we sent TV companies threatening letters to stop
carrying certain channels? No.
Now, more than ever, we must uphold the First Amendment. It
states, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.''
It is unique to Americans. It has been fought for. It has been
defended. It is foundational to our personal rights and
liberties.
So we should all be troubled by what appears to be an
attack on the First Amendment. This is an abuse of power. Ours
is a country for we the people, not a few in a position of
authority dictating to the rest.
You know, so today the media is the target, but where does
it end? We have already seen liberal ideology pushed in our
schools where we work, the books we read, who we communicate
with, how we practice our faith. It is frightening.
And you know what the worst part is? People are afraid of a
woke and authoritarian system that is getting them fired,
canceled, and shamed. So they are being silent. They have no
voice. They can't trust the broken institutions to protect
them. This culture of fear is unjust, and this committee should
not be using fear to force everyone to be the same or be
destroyed. It is abuse of power, and it is a force of a State
religion of liberal ideology.
I embrace all of us to embrace our fundamental rights that
lie at the foundation of a free government by free men.
And with that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle, in all my time on this
committee, there has never been a more obvious direct attack on
the First Amendment.
I want to be very clear.condemning the January 6th attack
and upholding truth and facts is a shared, bipartisan goal.
But that is not what this hearing is about.
If the Majority was interested in meaningful change, you
would not schedule a hyper-partisan hearing to shame and blame.
You certainly would not send letters pressuring companies
to block conservative media outlets.
I am not only disappointed in this hearing, I am deeply
troubled by it.
Every journalist--from MSNBC and CNN to The New York
Times--should be concerned by the Majority's actions.
And anyone who values free speech and a free press should
be worried.
Public officials using their platform to pressure private
companies to censor media outlets they disagree with?...
That sounds like actions from the Chinese Communist Party,
not duly elected representatives of the United States Congress.
Here, we cherish free speech and a free independent press.
We believe in dialogue and in the battle of ideas.
Rather than censor and silence constitutionally protected
speech, the answer is MORE speech.
That's the American way.
Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle, you once believed
threats against broadcasters for airing legally protected
speech to be illegal.
Less than a year ago, you sent a letter to the FCC decrying
attempts to censor or interfere with broadcasters' discretion
to air legally protected content.
Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter
into the record.
You said, quote, ``At a time when autocratic governments
around the world are using the coronavirus pandemic as an
excuse to suppress press freedoms, we must reaffirm--not
undermine--America's commitment to a free press.''
I ask you now--What's changed?
As you once put it, quote, ``To stay silent could undermine
the First Amendment.''
I call on you both to publicly denounce your colleagues'
censorship campaign over the news they disagree with.
Is this the standard you want to set? Under your new view,
liberal media would cease to exist.
Should CNN still be carried after hosting Governor Cuomo?
For months, liberal media lauded him and legitimized his
lethal response to COVID-19. He even won an Emmy for his use of
TV to spread misinformation.
How do we know it was misinformation? Because of a balance
of conservative networks that pursued investigative journalism.
Should MSNBC still be carried after years of pushing the
false ``Russia collusion'' narrative?
Thanks to independent journalists and a robust free press,
we learned their reporting was false.
Does your new standard stop with cable news or should it
now be applied to social media?
This is a dangerous and un-American standard you are
setting for more control to redefine for yourselves what is
true.
Do you think Republican Members of Congress agree with all
of the content on liberal media?
No.
Have we sent TV companies threatening letters to stop
carrying certain channels? No.
We support the spirit of the First Amendment.
It states ``Congress shall make no law.abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press.''
The Majority appears to be quasi-legislating its attack on
the First Amendment by using their public positions of power to
coerce private companies to censor political speech.
It's an abuse of power.
Today, the media is their target.
Very soon it will be on Big Tech CEOs for more censorship.
Next, it is forcing an ideology in our schools... where we
work...what books we read... who we communicate with... and how
we practice our faith.
This is frightening. Do you know what the worst part is?
It's already being mandated in our culture.
There are people in America today.... who are afraid to
stand up and say this is wrong.
They are afraid of a woke system that is getting them
fired, canceled, and shamed.
So they are silent. They have no voice.
They can't trust broken institutions to protect them.
This culture of fear is unjust.... and it's absurd this
committee is now using fear to force everyone to be the same or
be destroyed.
We should be leading a better example.
Rather than abuse its power and force a State religion of
liberal ideology, I urge this committee to seek excellence.
Let's come together around our most basic principles for
freedom.
Let's give people hope in the Promise of America again--so
they have the courage to be unique, creative, and live their
lives without fear.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would like
to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the
record.
I would like now to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing: Ms. Soledad O'Brien, anchor, ``Matter of Fact,'' CEO
of Soledad O'Brien Productions, welcome; Mr. Jonathan Turley,
professor at the George Washington University Law School--
welcome, sir; Ms. Kristin Danielle Urquiza, cofounder, Marked
By COVID; and last, but certainly not least, Ms. Emily Bell,
director of the Tow Center for Digital Media, Columbia
University.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
We look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will
recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their opening
statement, and we will start with Ms. O'Brien.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, ANCHOR, ``MATTER OF FACT,'' AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOLEDAD O'BRIEN PRODUCTIONS; JONATHAN
TURLEY, SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; KRISTIN DANIELLE URQUIZA,
COFOUNDER, MARKED BY COVID; AND EMILY BELL, LEONARD TOW
PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM AND DIRECTOR, TOW CENTER FOR DIGITAL
JOURNALISM, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF SOLEDAD O'BRIEN
Ms. O'Brien. Thank you to the chairman. Thank you to the
members of the committee and, of course, those who join me in
testifying.
Back in 2005 CNN aired a piece on ``Lou Dobbs Tonight''
reporting that the U.S. had 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the
previous 3 years because of unscreened illegal immigrants. That
figure was completely false. Back then, the official leprosy
statistics showed about 7,000 cases of leprosy over the last 30
years, not 3.
The Dobbs lie advanced his agenda of demonizing
undocumented immigrants, so it stuck, and he got away with it.
To those of us at CNN reporting on the communities that he
degraded, it was disheartening and insulting. And it was also
only the beginning. We had entered an era where broadcasters
would begin repeating and re-energizing lies and liars, an era
that would set the stage for xenophobic and racist narratives
that would take hold and polarize this country.
I have been a journalist for more than 30 years, reporting
and anchoring for local TV, network news, cable, places like
NBC, WBZ-TV, HBO Real Sports, CNN, Hearst. I do a podcast on
QuakeMedia, documentaries, series from my own production
company. And so my point is that I have my feet very firmly
planted on the media landscape, and this is what the landscape
looks like to me: Media, disguised as journalism, has been
spreading lies for years, elevating liars, and using the
ensuing slugfest to chase ratings, hits, subscriptions,
advertisers. Period. Full stop.
So how did we get here? Michael Rich, who is the CEO of the
Rand Corporation, where I am honored to serve on the board,
defines what happened as truth decay, the diminishing role of
facts and analysis in public life and important conversations
about policy issues, policy decisions, and elections.
And I believe this era of truth decay began when local
newspapers were badly--even mortally--wounded by the emergence
of free social media and the decline of advertising dollars
like classified ads. Our country has lost almost 2,100 papers
since 2004. Local news is the heartbeat of American journalism,
the glue of civic participation, the place where we turn to for
information about our local taxes, quality education,
infrastructure, and the demise left the public with only the
unfiltered and unverified cauldron of presumed fact and opinion
that is social media.
The public turned to TV for traditional reporting,
especially on politics, where 65 percent of Americans report
trusting information from TV and radio, depending on whether
the stations conform to their political leanings. But here's
the problem: TV didn't fill the void of in-depth reporting on
America's communities by producing stories about policies that
affect regular people. Instead, it became a place where facts
often go to die.
TV, cable news in particular, relies on the cheap and easy
booking of talking heads who exchange colorful barbs,
entertaining outbursts, and sometimes peddle outright fiction.
It has only gotten worse as reporters and anchors chase
ratings, toss aside objectivity to divide us into false
categories, I believe, of left and right, manipulating facts,
and debating the liars they booked for their very own shows.
Today, viewers who come looking for information instead get
enraging and contradictory facts from an endless churn of
guests who are not in the least representative of the public.
On ``Meet the Press,'' ``Face the Nation,'' and ``This Week''
back in 2015, 80 percent of the guests were white, 12 percent
were women, 2 percent were women of color, 41 percent were
Republican, 22 percent were Democrats.
All of this has eroded the public trust: 72 percent of
Americans said they trusted the media back in 1976. By 2020
that number had fallen to 40 percent.
So why did the media march down this road? Money. News
organizations need a cheap way to draw big ratings, and big
ratings mean more ad dollars, and it is really just that
simple. And when news organizations make decisions based on
ratings rather than responsible reporting, disinformation
flourishes in dangerous ways. Important conversations are
clouded, scrutiny is reduced, trust in our institution erodes.
So what to do about all this? Let me be clear that Congress
cannot and should not regulate journalism in defiance of the
First Amendment. But here is what we can do.
Don't book liars or advance lies. Cover the fact that lies
and propaganda are being disseminated, but do not book people
to lie on your show, because it elevates them and presents a
lie as another side.
Stop posing every story as having two sides. Some stories,
in fact, have many, many sides that are more complicated. And
also, lies don't have a side. Take the time to unravel and
report, and give history and context. We, as reporters, are
verifiers. Every perspective does not deserve a platform. Media
thrives on the open exchange of ideas, but that doesn't mean
you have to book a neo-Nazi every time you book someone who is
Jewish. Balance does not mean giving voice to liars, to bigots,
and to kooks.
Stop saying you want a diverse staff, and go hire one.
Fast. The public will trust you again if you tell the truth
about who lives in this country and report accurately on
communities.
Recognize that objectivity means having an open mind, not a
lack of judgment. If you do not call a lie a lie, or racism
racism, you empower the liar, you empower the racist.
Support efforts to challenge media that disseminates
misinformation, particularly in vulnerable communities.
And most importantly, support ground-level reporting,
journalism--the place, in fact, where major networks and cable
news gets a lot of its best stories.
America trusts the media to deliver accurate, factual,
unbiased information. It is the grist of democracy. It is the
stuff that enables us to have intelligent and accurate
conversations with our neighbors, to cast informed votes, and
make thoughtful and intelligent decisions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Brien follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Turley.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
[Pause.]
Mr. Doyle. You need to--Jonathan, you need to unmute.
Mr. Turley. I am sorry.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY
Mr. Turley. Chairman Rodgers, Ranking Member Latta, members
of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today.
Appearing before the committee on a subject of disinformation
in the media is not for the faint of heart. You know, this is
an issue that is heavily laden with political passions and
agendas.
As everything in my writings, I maintain what was once a
mainstream view of free speech, that it is--that the greatest
protection against bad speech is more speech. That view is
admittedly under fire and, indeed, may be a minority view
today. But history has shown that public and private forms of
censorship do not produce better speech. It is, rather, a self-
replicating, self-perpetuating path that only produces more
censorship and more controlled speech. That is why I have
encouraged you in my testimony not to proceed down that
slippery slope toward censorship.
I have come to this subject as someone who has written,
litigated, and testified in this area for decades. I also
worked for television and print media for decades, including
past contracts under NBC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, and Fox. And I have
had a wonderful past relationship with Soledad.
Now, extremist and violent speech is not an abstract or
academic matter with me or many others who work in the public
domain. Through the years I have received hundreds of threats
against myself, my family, even my dog. My home has been
targeted. Multiple campaigns have sought my termination as a
professor, particularly after I testified in the Clinton and
Trump impeachment hearings.
Thus, while I generally am viewed as a free speech purist,
I have no illusions about the harm of disinformation and
extremist speech in our society. And I believe that speech
controls pose far greater threats for our country than
misguided or malevolent speech.
Disinformation is a scourge in our society, but it is not a
new scourge. And as discussed in my testimony, the Constitution
was not only written for times like these, it was written
during times like these. At the start of the Republic,
Republicans and Federalists were not trying to cancel each
other in the contemporary sense, they were trying to kill each
other in the actual sense. There were rampant conspiracy
theories, and newspapers and pamphleteers were highly biased
and partisan.
This is also not the first time that people in power have
declared that they can rid us of this meddlesome media. The
question is, Who will be the arbiter of truth in any public or
private regime of speech regulation? The First Amendment limits
the ability of the Government to regulate or censor speech.
Accordingly, the United States has been spared a history of a
state media like China or Iran.
In the last few years it has shown that there is no need
for a central ministry controlling the media if there is a
common narrative or bias among private companies that control
communication. The reason that most of us have opposed state
media controls is not simply because we disfavor state
regulation of speech, but because we favor free speech. These
companies can deny free speech more effectively, more
efficiently than any state apparatus. We would achieve very
little in our constitutional system if we allow politicians to
achieve indirectly what they cannot do directly.
Of course, external controls on speech seem trivial or
inconsequential when the speech is not your own, and even less
if it is speech that you abhor, or despise. Europe has shown
that speech regulation becomes an insatiable appetite. There is
no evidence that European law has actually diminished hate
speech. There is plenty of evidence that they diminished free
speech. That impact is evident in recent polls out of Germany,
where only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their
opinions in public, and only 17 percent felt free to express
themselves in the internet.
Now, of course, it is notable that Angela Merkel recently
criticized the United States for its crackdown on free speech,
particularly Twitter and banning people, as a real threat to
free speech.
This appetite for speech--limiting the speech of others is
evident in the United States. We have talked briefly about the
recent letter to AT&T and other companies. I would be happy to
talk about that more.
But to be honest, from the perspectives of free speech and
the free press, the letter is not just chilling, it is
positively glacial.
I admit that I may be a relic in my views, but I continue
to believe that the greatest protection against bad speech is
better speech. Those seeking limits often speak of free speech
like it is a swimming pool that must be monitored and carefully
controlled for purity and safety. I view it more as a rolling
ocean. It is indeed dangerous, but it is also majestic and
inspiring. Its immense size allows for a natural balance. Free
speech allows false ideas to be challenged in the open rather
than driving dissenting viewpoints beneath the surface.
However, free speech, like other constitutional values,
requires a leap of faith, a faith not only in free speech, but
in each other. Citizens are capable of educating and informing
themselves. They do not need politicians or corporate filters
to protect them from speech deemed misleading, false, or
incited.
Roughly 70 years ago, Justice William Douglas warned that
the restriction of free speech is the most dangerous of all
subversions. It is the one un-American act that could easily
defeat us all. Some of the measures being discussed this week
have the potential to defeat us all.
Once again, thank you for the honor of appearing with you
and with my distinguished panelists. I would be happy to answer
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Turley.
We now recognize Ms. Urquiza for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KRISTIN DANIELLE URQUIZA
Ms. Urquiza. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to everyone
here for allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony. My
name is Kristin Urquiza. I am the cofounder of a grassroots,
nonprofit group called Marked By COVID, which my partner,
Christine Keeves, and I founded the day we buried my father,
Mark Anthony Urquiza, from COVID-19 on June 30th, 2020. He was
65.
My father's story is tragic, yet it is not unique. Every
single day since he has passed, I have spoken to people who
have lost close family members and loved ones to COVID, and I
am haunted by the eerie similarities between so many of us.
Let me start by stating the obvious. The primary person and
entity responsible for my father's death and hundreds of
thousands of people in the United States is Donald Trump and
his administration. This is why Marked By COVID is advocating
for a commission to investigate the Federal Government's
response to the pandemic thoroughly, so we know exactly what
happened and why.
However, crime and malfeasance aren't always committed by a
single actor. Frequently there are accomplices, enablers, and
complicit parties. To the people in this room and this sacred
body who blindly followed the President without questioning,
who put party over country, you and your colleagues are
enablers. To the media, and in particular cable news, you were
complicit. These actors may not have pulled the gun that point
triggered--that pointed at my father's head, but they indeed
drove the getaway car.
My beloved father loved his country, and he instilled in me
this: During times of crisis, it is our duty to our country to
turn to our leaders for information on what to do to keep one
another and our democracy safe. So on May 5th, 2020, when the
former President made his first public appearance from his
quarantine in Phoenix, Arizona, and said it was time to open
up, my dad listened. When Arizona Governor Doug Ducey flipped
the switch on May 15th, reopening the State with absolutely no
safety measures in place, my dad noticed.
But let me be abundantly clear: My father was not a
personal friend of Donald Trump, nor Doug Ducey. Like everyone
I know, my dad received his information through an
intermediary. And his media of choice was Fox Cable News and
Arizona's KTAR News 92.3 radio station.
Also, let me be clear: My parents never questioned the
reality or the severity of the pandemic, nor the efficacy of
simple public health safety measures like wearing masks. But
that all started to change after the President's visit to
Arizona. My dad then started to say to me, ``Kristin, why would
the Governor or the President say that it is safe, if it is not
safe?''
And you don't have to dig very deep to find both President
Trump and Doug Ducey pushing that we have nothing to fear, and
that if you do not have an underlying health condition, it is
safe to be out there.
The people in charge, the people he trusted and voted for,
told him over and over again that he didn't have to worry. And
I did my best to fight back. But there is no way that one
person can compete with the microphone of the Office of the
President, nor the propaganda machine that has become Fox Cable
News.
He died on June 30th, alone, with just a nurse holding his
hand. This should not have happened. It did not have to be this
way. The President and his enablers lied repeatedly, and that
disinformation was allowed to litter the airwaves and created
the exact right conditions for the virus to thrive and for
hundreds of thousands of people to pass away needlessly.
I said it earlier, and I will repeat it: The media didn't
pull the trigger, but they drove the getaway car. Cable news
channels like Fox News are complicit.
Isabelle ``Obie'' Papadimitriou, Charles Krebbs, Genivieve
Martinez, Dr. Gaye Griffin-Snyder, Mike Horton, Kathy Jones,
Calvin Schoenfeld, William Curby, Manuel Urquiza, Mark Anthony
Blackjack Urquiza, and more than half a million other names--
every single one of them deserves to be said out loud in this
hearing. All irreplaceable, all dead.
Thank you for allowing me to share our Marked By COVID
story and holding this hearing to address the role of media
fanning the flames of disinformation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Urquiza follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Thank you so much.
And now we have our last presenter. Ms. Bell is recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EMILY BELL
Ms. Bell. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. And thanks for
having me here today to speak about this incredibly important
issue.
I also want to thank the journalists and researchers
working in this area with an extraordinary lack of data. And I
hope that this is something that we can also address, which is
why we know so little about what actually happens in our
environment when we have such abundant material often trapped
in the service of our largest technology companies.
We heard about how both the tragic existential events that
faced America this year were accompanied by the circulation of
widespread and often politicized misinformation, conservative
cable news channels, often amplified by a President who was
notorious for spreading misinformation himself--he has 30,000
fact-checked statements during his presidency, 15,000 of the--
false statements during his presidency. Fifteen thousand of
those occurred in this last crucial year.
Whilst we are here to discuss the role of the news media, I
just want to emphasize that the digital context is just as
important. The influence of what was once thought of as
mainstream media I don't think can be any longer separated in
any way from the digital environment in which we all swim.
Misinformation, it is a systemic problem. It affects all,
and I wholeheartedly endorse the view this is not a partisan
issue. We sit in different geographies and right across the
political spectrum, operating in the same way.
We see content which is produced perhaps by cable news can
be amplified and discussed by white supremacists and militia
groups that lurk in online corners of the Internet.
We see conspiracy theories about the coronavirus that make
it to cable talk shows that still exist uncorrected on social
media.
Broadcasts that get just a few thousand viewers in real
time circulate clips and posts that reach millions more.
Some of this is the result of policy decisions and an
environment that we have created for a thriving media market. A
40-year path of deregulation has transformed the U.S. media
landscape in both economic and political terms. Rollback of
regulations has liberated the market but taken with it some of
the safeguards and support from all various localized media.
Digital media and the lowering of barriers has helped
elevate previously marginalized and ignored voices, and it has
made our public discourse much more diverse. But an open market
without regulation will always favor bad actors over good. In
financial markets this is known as Gresham's Law. Those with
ethics are inhibited in ways that those without ethics are not.
It is also worth saying that, in an open market, we talk
about more speech being corrective. Too often voices we really
need to hear are silenced by harassment and drowned out by
electronic amplification.
Whilst all news, national news media, and particularly
polarized, opinionated news has flourished, local trusted news
provision has really declined. As we have already heard, local
newsroom staff have halved in the past 15 years, and there are
now over 800 markets without any local news at all in the
United States. Unfortunately, coronavirus has been an
accelerant for this. This is something we track at my research
center at Columbia University. We know that we have lost
another 100 or so outlets just in the course of the last year.
There is really a need for American democratic institutions
to identify and work together on the priorities that would
mitigate this kind of extremism and misinformation. Solutions
encouraging a different news media environment should be
central, I think, to our thinking. Finding the means to fund
and sustain more independent local reporting are a burning
priority. Civic journalism representative of the communities it
serves should be established and strengthened through a reform
agenda centered, I think, on the information rights of all
communities. We talk about the information needs, but I think
that they should really be thought of--rights, the right to
hear good information.
Mistrust of the media, it doesn't just exist in polarized
pockets, either. It also exists within communities who have
been ignored or misrepresented by mainstream media for decades.
The opportunities to correct this cannot and should not be
ignored. And I believe that they are an essential part of
throwing a fire blanket on these flames that we are talking
about today of extremism and division.
I also believe that it is not just down to individual
choice, or even the free market and choices made by companies.
I believe that there is policy role here, which is not about
infringing the First Amendment but which is about strengthening
ways in which we can have a more vibrant, truthful news
environment.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Bell. And that
concludes our witnesses' statements. And so we are now going to
move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
ask questions of our witnesses.
I am going to start by recognizing myself, but I wanted Mr.
McNerney to know that I am going to cut myself off at 4 minutes
and give you my last minute to do what you were going to do
before, which--I forgot to give you the minute. All right?
So let me start out by saying I wanted to know if either
Ms. O'Brien or Ms. Bell--are there any organizations that have
found a way to properly police disinformation and deal with
public figures inclined to spread it?
And are there any best practices that news organizations
can employ for this purpose?
Quickly, since my time is now even more limited.
Ms. O'Brien. I can begin very quickly, and then I will hand
it off to Professor Bell.
I would say that policing is not the word that I would use.
I think my call would be for news organizations themselves to
recognize the dangerous position that they have put themselves
in and their viewers in. And I would say the list of things in
my written testimony and what I read would be the things that
you can do.
In some ways it is very simple: Do not book liars on the
air. That is not brain surgery. People who lie, people who
traffic in misinformation and disinformation should not be
booked on the air. That would be a very good place to begin.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Ms. Bell?
Ms. Bell. There is a burgeoning area of research and civil
society organizations--there is a research group, actually,
convened around the election called the Election Integrity
Partnership, which looked at both the roots of this and
discussed ways in which things could be mitigated. It is what
we work on, again, at Columbia.
I think that when you say is there any successful
strategies, as Soledad said, there are a whole range, I think,
starting with journalists really recognizing how their work can
be used in different contexts, right from, you know, the
headline or the push alert that you get on your phone through
to when you are talking to maybe a politician, for instance,
who is not telling the truth, how you phrase that, what my
colleague at NYU, Jay Rosen, would call a truth sandwich: frame
what is perhaps challengeable with context.
There are plenty of ways in which news organizations can
connect better, I think, with the communities and with sources.
I think that just prioritizing, reaching people where they are
with high-value, high-quality information is really important,
and also recognizing that they are not trusted and thinking
about different ways to mitigate that trust.
Has anyone done it completely effectively yet? No. We would
hope that, in the next 4 years, that we could address that.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And then I am going to--one more
question, briefly, of Ms. Urquiza.
I have been troubled particularly by the degradation of
science. And we have seen, you know, whether it is climate
change, public health, or with COVID-19, there are not two
sides, in my opinion, when it comes to the acceptance of basic
facts, particularly facts that are verified and backed by
active scientific methodology.
So I am--I really--I wanted to start off by saying I am so
sorry for the loss of your father. And I am sure he would be
proud to see you here today. But do you think, in a--that there
is any way that some media outlets, when they are portraying
as--there being two sides to the seriousness of COVID-19,
whether and how to take precautions against this virus has
blurred the danger it actually poses?
Like, you know, should you really be getting two sides on
the virus, when the facts are known, and doesn't it blur when
you are trying to get a message out about COVID and how to
crush it?
Ms. Urquiza. I am happy to weigh in on that. You know,
the--facts are facts. There is no such thing as alternative
facts. And even free speech scholars argue that, for a
democracy to function, informed debates and the marketplace of
ideas must work off a shared set of facts.
When it comes to science, science is truth, and there are
not two sides to what science tells us. I think part of the
problem that----
Mr. Pallone. All right, Kristin, I am going to have to cut
you short, because I promised to give Jerry some time.
Ms. Urquiza. Oh, of course.
Mr. Pallone. I apologize.
Ms. Urquiza. No worries.
Mr. Pallone. Jerry, you have the remaining time, for what
it is worth. Go ahead.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding to me
on this.
You know, rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories
that we witnessed to overturn the election results led to the
insurrection on the United States Capitol and posed a great
threat to our safety, security, and way of life. But the
foundation of our democracy is rooted in truths. Any effort to
undermine that truthfulness is an effort at--to undermine and
dismantle our democracy.
We should all be concerned about any source that helps
spread disinformation, conspiracy theory, and lies. And that is
why I sent a letter with Representative Eshoo asking cable,
satellite, and streaming providers the questions to understand
how disinformation spreads, and the role of various companies
in enabling its spread.
While social media undoubtedly plays a major role in
enabling disinformation ecosystems, traditional media outlets
should not escape scrutiny or accountability.
I am pleased to have this hearing. I appreciate your
testimony, and I look forward to the questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. And Mr. Doyle, Chairman Doyle, has returned.
So I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle [presiding]. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now
want to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Latta, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate that.
And before I start my questions to Professor Turley, first
of all, I want to just say that, you know, reading your
document that you presented to us is very enlightening. And we
have to remember, as a student of history, at some point
remember what happened in our founding days, especially with
the Sedition Acts in the Adams administration, the founding of
those early newspapers with Hamilton and with Jefferson and
Madison, and what was going on back and forth, through the
Civil War, the Espionage Act under Wilson, that--you know, we
see all these things reoccurring, and what we are seeing being
brought forward to today.
And one of the things I remember being taught in school
years ago in college that--as a history major--is that he who
forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.
And Professor Turley, again, I want to thank you for being
with us today, and your defense of the Constitution. The
Democrat hearing memo for today states that, ``despite
criticism, many traditional media outlets continue to allow for
the disinformation in an attempt to follow journalistic
standards and present multiple viewpoints on a news story.''
How would silencing one or more of those viewpoints, as the
memo seems to imply would be helpful, actually hurt the ability
of the media to correct the facts, to educate, and inform the
public?
Mr. Turley. Well, it would, and part of the value of a free
press is the diversity of opinions and also the multiplicity of
sources that it allows as exposure of lies. And lies tend to
die from exposure. Sometimes it takes too long for most of us--
as most of us would wish. But if you start to eliminate those
viewpoints, you don't create better speech, you just create
coerced or official speech.
My problem with the letter is that it only talks about
networks that are viewed as conservative leaning. You know, the
CNN, MSNBC, other networks have also been criticized for bias
and criticized for false stories. And I think they have tried
to address those issues, as have other networks. But to just
focus on one part of that industry to try to either curtail or
eliminate them is not advancing the interest of free speech, it
is advancing the interests of a type of official speech, or
regulated speech.
Mr. Latta. Let me follow up. We have heard from our other
witnesses today about the need for Congress to shed light on
how irresponsible media contributes to disinformation in ways
that have consequences for the democracy and encourage public
education that helps the public discern between fact and
fiction. Yet some of my Democratic colleagues prefer to cancel
certain news channels. How does government oversight of the
media align with the First Amendment principles?
Mr. Turley. Well, you know, this is not a new issue. You
know, if you look at the origins of the free press values that
we hold dear, as well as free speech, they go back to the fight
of John Milton in the 1600s, when he was fighting official
licensing laws, laws that allowed the Government to dictate who
would be published.
And this is like a dormant virus in our system. There is
always a new generation and a new interest in trying to
regulate the free press to produce a more pleasing or
acceptable or less objectionable product. That never worked.
What it does is it produces an official product, which is
exactly what the free press is designed to avoid.
Mr. Latta. Well, in a followup to that, what do you think
is the appropriate role of the Government in working to combat
the disinformation that exists out there?
Mr. Turley. Well, there is a lot that could be done.
To be frank, as I think Soledad O'Brien stated correctly,
the view of the press among the public is at an all-time low,
you know, 40 percent--I may be optimistic at this point--in
terms of people who trust the media. The question is why. That
is not just the conservative media. That is the media across
the spectrum. And part of it is this echo journalistic model
that has been replicated throughout the industry.
They also don't trust Congress, quite frankly. They don't
trust this committee or other committees. And we have to accept
that.
And what we should do is try to create forms of information
that are reliable for the public to reach their own
conclusions, not to give them processed conclusions, but to
give them that essential data and information, to give
transparency to investigations. And then I think that trust can
rebuild, not only with the media, but also with Congress.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And again, we
appreciate your testimony today.
And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank my friend for yielding back. The Chair
now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Ms. O'Brien, in your testimony you talk about the weakening
of journalistic standards throughout the media and the rise of
anchors and commentators more intent on enraging their viewers
than informing them. What is the danger when content is
presented to viewers as news or as facts that really amounts to
entertainment, without a factual basis or any journalistic
standards?
Do you believe that this has exacerbated the pandemic? And
do you think it helped foment the insurrectionist attack on
January 6th?
Ms. O'Brien. I think you fail in your journalism when you
do not actually do what the job is, which is to bring facts to
people.
And listen, first of all, I just want to say I am
incredibly proud to be a journalist. I work with many great
colleagues. And there are many good news organizations large
and small, local TV stations, newspapers big and small, and I
will name some of them. I think Report for America is quite
good. Hechinger Report is quite good. ProPublica is quite good.
They are elevating, and they are reporting, frankly, around the
country. And I think probably the biggest issue is that there
is just not enough of them, right?
So, when you have misinformation and when you have lies
elevated--we talk about more speech and good speech and better
speech. I think the actual conversation is about the risks of
elevating lies. My conversation is about facts and lies. And so
I think that you should not be allowed and the news
organizations should not want people to be on the air if they
are, in fact, lying and they are liars. They should--because
the news organizations' values are to inform their public.
Sometimes you get the sense that truth is unknowable. That
is just not correct. I am advocating for good journalism. I am
advocating for reporting, which is how we verify information.
We do not need to put people who are spreading misinformation
on the air. And I think that is nothing that the Congress has
to deal with, it is news organizations themselves who should
hold themselves to this standard. It is a journalistic
standard.
Mr. Doyle. Right. Thank you.
What about you, Ms. Bell, do you have anything to add to
that?
[Pause.]
You need to unmute.
Ms. Bell. My students will be laughing at me now.
So I think this point about better speech, good speech, the
checks and balances of having a balanced market, it is really
important that we understand how difficult that is in a digital
environment.
Some of the networks we look at, which are partisan, they
exist on both the left and the right that don't disclose their
funding, that operate at local levels. They create a million
stories in the course of a year. They contain very little
original reporting. They are designed to get people to think
about the repetition of phrases and think that things are
issues that are not really issues.
You can create an enormous amount of that material, and you
can actually target it at people very, very cheaply and easily.
And the job, then, of journalists on the ground becomes
incredibly difficult. We see this showing up in local news
rooms all the time. So we hear from editors and reporters
saying, you know, ``Increasingly, half of my job is just
combating stuff which is not true.'' And that is the narrative
I have heard a lot from reporters in places like Ukraine,
places like Russia, 5:36 PMand really not something you expect
to hear in the U.S.
So I think it is not just about this partisan issue. I
think we really do have to understand that the environment does
not support and promote the things that are based in truth in
the way that it should. And that is about incentives in all
areas, I think, of the market.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, it seems like more free speech just isn't
winning the day over the kind of speech that we are concerned
about, unfortunately.
Ms. Urquiza, first of all, my condolences to you and your
family. This pandemic has taken many people's family and
friends and loved ones away from us. And I appreciate you
appearing today because I know this must be tough for you. I
want to ask you, Do you think your father's story is unique?
And what role do you think the news media played in
delivering what was an untimely, deadly disinformation to your
father?
Ms. Urquiza. My father's story is absolutely not unique. I
have, over the course of many, many months, have been hearing
similar and eerie stories from literally hundreds of people
across the country who have come to Marked By COVID looking for
support to figure out how to push forward.
And my dad's messages to me started to change as the news
media started to say that it was safe, advertising the
messaging coming from the White House that we didn't have
anything to fear from. I know exactly that that was a huge role
in him making the decisions that he made.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, thank you very much. I see my time is up.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing,
along with the majority's letters that target right-wing cable
outlets, are really a dangerous escalation in the left's
crusade to silence anyone who does not agree with their
ideology. It appears to me that the Democrats may want to
revive the Fairness Doctrine.
And Mr. Turley, I wanted to start by asking you: Can you
explain the significant issues you see with a new Fairness
Doctrine and why you would caution Congress against bringing it
back?
[Pause.]
Mr. Doyle. Jonathan, you need to unmute. We can't hear you.
Mr. Turley. I don't know how many times I have to be told
that, I am sorry.
Questioning a fairness doctrine for the media sounds a lot
like questioning a purity doctrine for milk. It is hard to
explain, but there is a substantial question as to whether the
Fairness Doctrine would be upheld today based on the earlier
decision. It was upheld in 1969 in the Red Lion case.
Now, I must confess, I don't favor the Fairness Doctrine
because I don't favor government regulation of the media. I
adhere to the view of Justice Hugo Black, when he said, ``I
take no law abridging'' to mean no law abridging, in quoting
the First Amendment. That is why many people treat me as--often
refer to me as a free speech and free press purist in that
sense, something that I take as a compliment.
But in Red Lion, the court applied an intermediate scrutiny
standard that many of us have questioned as to whether that was
appropriate. It based its decision on the notion that broadcast
networks were a unique medium, they were a scarce source of
news, that people didn't have the ability to choose between
news, and it was free. This was available to the public. And so
they decided to apply a lower standard.
It is not clear they would do that again. In cases like in
1974, in Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo, the Court struck
down a Florida law requiring newspapers to give space to people
who were criticized or attacked. But also we now don't have
that scarcity, right? We have cable news that----
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, thank you. I want to get to a couple
more questions.
So I wanted to ask all the witnesses that are here--and
this is a yes-or-no question: Do you support government
pressure on private companies to remove legally protected
content from their viewing platforms?
I would like each of you to answer yes or no, please.
Ms. Bell. No.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Turley. Yes, I don't support government regulation.
Mrs. Rodgers. Great. As has been referenced, you know,
earlier this week certain members of the majority sent a very
concerning letter to companies pressuring them to block
conservative outlets. And I know we have heard a lot from
people on both sides of the aisle about the importance of
upholding the First Amendment. I would like to offer this
letter into the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Rodgers. To be clear, combating disinformation is a
shared goal. But we do not want to follow the lead of
authoritarian countries like China, not here in the United
States, where we cherish an independent press.
So Mr. Turley, do you agree that the answer to speech we
disagree with is more speech, rather than less? And would you
just explain briefly?
Mr. Turley. I do. And I think history shows that. What
history shows also is that limiting speech, trying to regulate
it to private or public means, it tends not to produce better
speech. It tends to produce regulated or official or approved
speech. It tends to favor an orthodoxy. And that is a reason
many of us oppose government regulation of the media, which is
inherently at odds. And going back, as I mentioned, to the
1600s, the very foundation of a free press was formed in this
conflict between the press and the government, and trying to
keep the government from exercising these controls.
But it takes a leap of faith. You have to believe, not just
in the free press and free speech, you have to believe in each
other, that we can make the right decisions.
And it is not always the case. It doesn't always turn out
the right way. There are a lot of people that aren't convinced.
Many of us said soon after the election that there was not
systemic fraud. A lot of people didn't believe that, but----
Mrs. Rodgers. Right, OK----
Mr. Turley [continuing]. Speech allows them to be
convinced.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Finally, just to Mr. Chairman, you know, you once wrote,
``Censoring or interfering with broadcasters' discretion to air
legally protected content is wrong,'' and threats by
politicians about protected speech were concerning, and that
anyone who ``stays silent could undermine the First Amendment
and our Communications Act.'' So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
say we need to be united in our effort to uphold the
Constitution. We need to work together and not use our
positions of power to threaten private companies to censor or
interfere with constitutionally protected content. And so we
stand ready to work together to protect these constitutionally
protected freedoms of speech and the press.
And with that, I----
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for holding this
very important and informative discussion. It is important to
talk about these things.
My district includes the City of Stockton, California, with
a population of over 300,000 people. It is the most racially
and ethnically diverse city in the country. And here is what we
are seeing in Stockton. In 2010 the Stockton Record, our local
paper, had a staff of about 80 people. Today it has a staff of
8. When we look at the total number of reporters in the city
region and State that covers our metropolitan area, we see the
same trend. In 2010 there were 100 to 110 reporters in print
and broadcasting. Today there are 10 to 20. I am concerned
about how this decline of local news is impacting our
community.
Ms. O'Brien, when there are fewer reporters covering
everyday life in a community, is there--and there is less local
reporting, how does this affect the ability of individuals to
stay informed?
Ms. O'Brien. Clearly, it is a huge problem, and those
numbers that you are talking about in Stockton, California, are
repeated across the country. It is devastating.
And part of the problem is that people aren't only just
getting misinformation and disinformation, they are also just
getting no information. And so that becomes very problematic.
There are real costs to that. How do you make decisions? How do
you make decisions around policy? How do you make decisions
about what is happening in your community?
Local news--local newspapers, specifically--were very much
the way to do that. And because they are being decimated, there
are some real tangible results of that, and those tangible
results are devastating to communities, small communities.
Mr. McNerney. Well, when there are local cuts to local
newsrooms, how does this impact the ethnic diversity of the
news cadre?
And how could not having a diverse news staff impact trust
in the press?
Ms. O'Brien. I have spent a lot of time reporting stories
about diverse communities. And I think one thing we see is that
diversity in the newsroom helps to actually get out more
accurate stories, more interesting stories from diverse
communities. So there is a real cost.
Often, since many--and I don't know how it is in Stockton,
but since many reporters of color are sometimes more recently
hired, that often means that if there are layoffs, they are
pretty quickly fired. And that means that your newsroom reverts
back to not a particularly diverse newsroom.
There, of course, is a tremendous cost to that. How do you
cover a community that is growing more and more diverse without
the staff that actually can navigate that? And how do you make
sure that you are showing the public, day in and day out, that
you care about the community, when you are not actually there
to cover their stories? It is hugely problematic.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Professor Bell, how does a void in
local news contribute to the spread of disinformation?
Ms. Bell. Well, I think in every dimension it is exactly
right that--just as Soledad O'Brien just said, you know, we
have done research in urban Philadelphia, we have done it in
rural Kansas. You have really, really different populations
there. But the thing that they share in common is that they
feel like journalism was something which just was traditionally
done to them, not for them. They have low expectations of the
press. They have little trust in it.
And I think the problem is--support for local media, and
local media does actually keep government accountable, it keeps
expenditure down. It keeps--I mean, all of this is in the
evidence.
And I think the other thing which is sociological, which is
really important to say here, which is that, if you are from
one of the communities, if you are from your area that you
represent, and you are a young person with ambition to serve
their community and particularly if you are a young person who
is not properly represented in the press, you are not going to
look at the moment at local press and think that is a great,
stable path for me to follow.
So, you know, I think that losing that step of--the first
step of accountability and democracy, really, it means that
almost everything else in the pyramid of media is standing on a
very faulty foundation. I think we really--you can't
overestimate how important it is as a foundation of democracy.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, for consumers with cable
subscriptions, channels are typically bundled and consumers
can't opt out of paying for certain channels, even if they
don't want the channel. I recently wrote a letter with
Representatives Eshoo that has been referred to today
expressing grave concern about how some of these channels are
spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories.
Professor Bell, have consumers, even those who do not want
to watch these channels, been paying for disinformation?
Ms. Bell. The economics of bundling and cable coverage does
mean that inevitably you end up paying, as a consumer, for
things that you wouldn't necessarily pay for otherwise. So, in
that dimension, yes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, it should be noted a lot of Americans
don't realize they are paying for disinformation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
recognition.
My daughter just graduated from journalism school, so this
is important to me. She is going to start a career in a great
field. And it is important that we have honesty and integrity
in journalism.
And I have a lot of people at home asking me quite often,
``What news should I watch?'' I mean, I think some people
realize that we have divided ourselves into news for one belief
and news for the other, and which one to watch. And it is
difficult for me to say. And I always say that, if you had two
conspiracies, two conspiracies, both of them conspiracies, one
is that there were emergency measures put in place on mail-in
voting in certain States and that mail-in voting had
irregularities that changed the election, and the other one is
the Russian president hijacked the American election because he
had information on the American president to make him an agent
of the Russian government, which one do you think would get
investigated, and which one do you think would get summarily
dismissed?
We both--we know that the Russian investigation was false.
We know that Members of Congress were on television and cable
shows saying they had evidence that the President--that was all
true. They were never called out on it. And so it is just
frustrating that, if we are looking at one side or the other,
it is both sides, and we really need to focus on this. And the
question is, Where is Congress's role in doing it, and--given
the First Amendment?
And so I want to focus on--and I think what Ms. Urquiza was
talking about--I am on the--I am the ranking member of the
healthcare subcommittee of this committee. And it is important
that we get accurate information, it absolutely is important we
get accurate information out.
During the Operation Warp Speed phase, when they were
developing the vaccines, we had members of this committee, we
had the Vice President, current Vice President of the United
States, talk about the process of Operation Warp Speed and
getting the vaccines in a negative way, in my opinion. And it
just really frustrated me, because everybody who wanted to know
knew they were--FDA was following the standards of every other
vaccine. That was what was evident.
And by spreading disinformation, if somebody chooses not to
get a vaccine because they heard somebody from this committee,
or they heard the Vice President earlier in--and that was
during the campaign season, not during our current vice
presidency--it really does lend to people making decisions that
Ms. Urquiza was talking about, that is not with the best
information.
And so the question you get to, if we say, ``Well, only
people that have this information can go talk on television,''
what do we tell the politicians that spread disinformation? Do
we tell them in the course of a campaign they can't make those
kind of comments? And so we are all for the right information.
The question, I guess, with Dr. Turley, I went and visited
a--there was a vaccine site in my district where they were
doing the experimentation. I go in, and the researcher, the
lady who was doing all the--set up the research and the tests
and so forth, really kind of excoriated me. And we deserved it
on the political side for politicizing the process. It is--and
she corrected me, said, ``This shouldn't be political. This
is--we are moving forward.'' And she really brought forth--and
I said, ``You are right, it shouldn't be political. We should
have answers.''
And then the two physicians who were responsible for the
practice where she was doing the administration, one sat down
and said, ``Children can spread this, and children are needing
to be vaccinated'' and so forth, and I won't get into it, where
the other one completely contradicted what he said. Two
physicians in the same practice, sitting in the same room.
And I looked to the researcher, I said, ``See, this is the
problem we are having getting information out.''
So the question, I guess, Dr. Turley, if there are two
opinions--I mean, how do you get to the point where we say we
know this is safe and effective, we know that all of the
criticisms against the vaccine are wrong, therefore we are--
what process would you say would Congress have in place to say
only the people telling what we know to be true can go on
television? I don't understand how we would do that,
practically.
Mr. Turley. Well, I don't think you could do that. And I
don't think the courts would allow you to do that under the
First Amendment. But the way you resolve that is you have to
convince people, and that is never easy, right? It is very
frustrating, because some people won't be convinced.
I actually felt it was very important in the days following
the election to say, ``Let's look at all of these allegations''
while also saying that we didn't see any evidence of systemic
fraud. Just we would like to look at it. There was a whole
group of people that were, within a couple of days of the
election, saying there is no fraud, no irregularities, and even
threatening lawyers and trying to get them to drop these cases.
That didn't help. That didn't help convince people, because
what they saw was a bunch of people trying to silence others,
and I think it snowballed into what we saw, that both sides
were not listening or speaking to the others.
So those of us who are in the middle on--in the media have
to try to do our best to try to frame these issues, to convince
people. It is not as easy as silencing some voices, it is not
as easy as marginalizing voices. But it is the only thing that
can unify us, is to find avenues for dialogue. Congress can
play a role in that by trusting citizens enough to give them
greater transparency, greater information, so that they can
make their own decisions.
And I want to echo what the Democratic Member said before,
and also what my copanelist said. I also believe that the loss
of local media is a serious problem. And that is another area
where Congress really could play a good role in focusing on how
we can get back to a robust local media.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, I am sorry, my time has expired. I
yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The Chair recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A top 10 of facts that
we saw contested vigorously over the last year: COVID-19 is
real and can kill you; masks protect us; Pfizer and the Moderna
vaccines are safe and effective; Joe Biden won the Presidential
election; there are no massive instances of voter fraud; it was
Trump supporters that stormed the Capitol on January 6th; there
are 530 Members of Congress that are capitalists and about 5
that are Democratic Socialists; the Federal Government infected
black men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972; a third of Puerto
Rican women were forced--sterilized from 1930 to 1970, both by
the Federal Government; and lastly, the Earth is still round.
I say this because you see so many of these facts were the
subject of intense campaigns and misinformation in social
media, in newspapers, and broadcasting. And I get we have to
strike a balance on this.
First I want to ask Ms. O'Brien, who obviously has the show
``Matter of Fact,'' about how important it is to get the facts
right, particularly regarding COVID-19, vaccines, and other key
public health facts when it comes to communicating with
communities of color.
Ms. O'Brien. Clearly, it is absolutely essential,
especially for vulnerable populations, because, obviously, when
there is lots of misinformation or disinformation or just flat-
out lies, then you run the risk that people are making
decisions off of this misinformation.
On the show that I do, ``Matter of Fact,'' we have
consistently been dipping back into communities of color to
talk to them about their fears, their concerns, and talking to
experts, as well, as we follow what is happening with the
vaccine. I think it is really critical.
But I think it is essential to remember that robust
dialogue is great. It just has to be robust dialogue around
facts. You know, this--again, this idea that, you know, speech
and more speech--all great, as long as it is centered in facts.
And I think we should be really clear to tease out
misinformation and disinformation and lies are very different
than people just having disagreements over a set of facts.
Mr. Soto. And what do you think the consequences could be
of continued massive falsehoods regarding vaccines and COVID-19
among communities of color?
Ms. O'Brien. We have already seen many communities of color
are very slow to get access to the vaccine. Sometimes that is
structural, and sometimes it is because they have had a history
of distrust in the medical profession. And so there are already
concerns there. And it is one of the reasons we keep dipping
back into this story consistently, almost every other week, to
make sure we are elevating that conversation.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much.
Professor Turley, it is great to see you again. I enjoyed
your classes at GW Law. It is always a pleasure to have you in
committee.
We saw a huge Spanish language misinformation campaign in
South Florida in particular in our State, blaming Antifa and
BLM for the Capitol insurrection. The FCC already has laws on
the books that, if you knowingly broadcast false information
that will cause substantial public harm, that it is illegal. Is
this one of the proper ways we could pursue making sure that we
have some truth in broadcasting and existing laws? Would that
be a way to strike that balance, by the FCC looking at it and
beefing up their Spanish language staff?
Mr. Turley. Well, thank you again, Congressman, it is good
to see you again.
I wish I could say that that was a potential avenue. I
don't think it is a workable avenue, because it quickly gets
bound up in this sort of regulation of the media and can trip
these same wires under the First Amendment.
There are protections, of course. You know, you do have
defamation laws, even with public figures. You can sue people.
We have had a whole plethora of lawsuits recently, including by
Dominion Computers, which has been suing a number of people
about falsehoods that have been made. Those do have deterrent
impacts. They do have an impact on media as well as nonmedia
figures.
The most important role of Congress is to be a vehicle of
truth, to get that information out, and to allow the media to
filter out these voices.
I am not as confident as Soledad. I don't--I have to say
that I don't think it is fair to say, ``Well, look, I am in
favor of free speech and free press as long as you are not a
liar, as long as what you are saying is not untrue.'' And it
gets us back--it is sort of circular, because it--we end up in
the same spot. Who is the arbiter of that? What is the meaning
that someone is a liar and someone is being untruthful?
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Professor. And I want to give Ms.
O'Brien----
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is--you have 4 seconds,
so----
Mr. Soto. My time is expired.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Soto. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Adam, you are up.
Mr. Kinzinger. Hey, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks,
everybody, for being here.
You know, one of the interesting--when we talk about truth,
I mean, I think, you know, when you think back to COVID, I have
had people that have sent me, well, how come there is 500,000
that have died from COVID and flu deaths are way down? And that
is seen as some kind of a thing that this is really the flu.
And, you know, you just got to remind people because we are all
wearing masks and keeping distance, and that is how the flu
passes.
So I do want to say to our panelist who lost a family
member and anybody else, I am truly sorry and devastated, and I
hope you can find some solace in the work you are doing.
You know, lots of what we are talking about--I think the
important part here is we look back at past actions and we do a
lot of ``what about this,'' and well, ``Democrats did this,''
and the Democrats say, ``The Republicans did this.'' And you
are never going to win an argument that way. I think, in the
future of disinformation, the key is to call it out in your own
party.
I will tell you, some of you lefties on this panel, you
know, call my base and tell them something, they are not going
to listen to you. But if I say it, they are much more likely
to. And I think that is where it is important for each party
and each political philosophy to take a personal account for
what you are telling your constituents and people that are
listening to you. Because I got to tell you, as much as this
debate is important, if this society falls apart we are going
to look back and say not just ``We could have done more,'' we
are going to say all the things we argued about were nothing in
comparison to the fact that now society has failed and my dad
can't get his heart medicine, or something like that.
So this is deadly serious. And I think it is important for
everybody to remember this is far beyond what it means for the
next election and who is going to win the majority, and
anything like that. And we need a 10-part series to cover the
way that government officials, media, and the public have
contributed to this.
But I think we need to focus today on fear and anger
associated with our discourse.
National news media has a substantial role in society. But
over time we have seen traditional news reporting devolve into
opinion reporting. Too often, national news outlets give prime-
time slots to opinion personalities over news reports. And some
of these personalities will start a segment by reporting the
top lines of a current event, but then they quickly transition
and spend more time on expressing their political hot take on
the matter. They point fingers, they create, you know,
political narratives, and more time on that than they do
offering important background and details and letting you make
your own decision.
Plus the fact that we are being hit from every front with
all kinds of information. Eventually, it is like, if you are
being attacked on three sides, you are just going to jump into
a foxhole and hide and listen to the one person that maybe you
trust. And that person can now take a hold of anything you
believe and tell you anything.
There is plenty of evidence to show that fear mongering and
fomenting anger drives engagement and ratings. We know that.
And similar constructs, of course, can be applied to social
media. Ultimately, this fosters a culture of fear and click
bait to get attention.
Civility is not limited to the words we choose or to the
tone that we employ. It means respecting one another as equals
through our shared humanity. And as it applies to this hearing,
civility means prioritizing the reporting of facts over
opinions, and then trusting the public to interpret the events
for themselves and assign the right value.
I do want to make a general distinction, though, again,
between national and local media, as was discussed. There is
always exceptions, but I have to tell you I am a big fan of
local media and local news. I think it is very fact-based. It
can show people, you know, where to get the latest vaccine,
what is going on. I think the degradation or the disappearing
of local news is a real concern. They also can play a very good
role, as we have seen, in, you know, exposing scams that are
out there that we have seen, for instance, of seniors and
others. So I am all for keeping it local.
I do want to ask, though, Professor Turley. Mis- and
disinformation have to be addressed in a bipartisan fashion. We
know that foreign actors utilize both to sow the seeds of
discord and to threaten democracies across the globe. And at
the same time, the most important principle of democracy is the
freedom of speech and expression. But I worry that we are
crossing into yelling fire in a theater if it is this
dangerous.
So let me ask you. I am interested in exploring the legal
ways to curb disinformation and protect the First Amendment.
Given the important role the media has, what do you think about
these outlets having to make it clear to their audience when
their segments are opinion versus fact?
Mr. Turley. Well, I think that is important. There is a
blurring that has occurred. If you go past 6:00 on most cable
networks, you are pretty much in the realm of opinion today.
And it does blur.
And I think what you said earlier, Congressman, is really
important. Let's be honest: Rage is addictive. I mean, we are a
nation addicted to rage. People complain about how tired they
are and how they wish they could get beyond this, but I don't
see any evidence of it. People are addicted to rage, and they
are using that rage to try to silence others or blame others.
And it is ripping this country apart.
The media can play a very important role in trying to
create a dialogue. And that is all the media, the diversity of
media that we have. And the Congress can help in that sense.
Mr. Kinzinger. That is right. Well, it is----
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. I am sorry,
Adam.
Mr. Kinzinger. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. OK, buddy, thank you. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
putting together this very important hearing.
Mr. Chairman, the spread of misinformation and
disinformation strikes at the heart of our democracy. Without
the ability to discern what is true from what is not, or the
ability to even work from the same shared sets of facts, there
is no way we can earnestly debate the important and complex
issues that impact our constituents every day.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think there has been a
lot of commentary in this area already. I will just jump
straight to my questions so we have enough time to have a
little bit of a conversation. I would like to start with Ms.
O'Brien.
Some have argued that equal time should be given to
competing sides of controversial issues. I tend to agree with
that, generally. But in practice it seems awfully difficult.
How do broadcast journalists and media sources in general give
equal time to each side of an issue without vindicating those
whose opinions are not based in facts?
Ms. O'Brien. So I covered this in my written testimony, so
I refer back to that. But I would say that I think debate
around facts is great, and I am absolutely a proponent of
debating. I think where we see a difference is when we are not
dealing with facts, and we are dealing with something that is
dishonest and a lie.
So I do not believe that lies deserve equal time. And I
think that journalism students from pretty much day one are
able to begin to ferret out what things are true. It is
reporting, right? It is the who, why, what, when, how. And so,
for me, that is really how it needs to be thought about.
Facts are not unknowable. It is not this who knows what is
real, who knows what is not real. There are verifiable facts.
And, in fact, those can be the center of a very good and
engaging and important debate that will engage your viewers,
that will help them make decisions, that will help your
constituents. But when those things that are being debated are
actually based on misinformation and lies, there is no
obligation to elevate a lie, ever. There is no one in a news
organization who would say that that is the mission of
journalism, to elevate and platform lies.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, ma'am.
Turning to Ms. Bell, do you think that climate change and
the potential consequences of allowing the spread of inaccurate
or just simply wrong information has similar perils and dangers
as to what we saw with the spread of misinformation regarding
the COVID 2019--I am sorry, the COVID-19 virus in the 2020
elections?
And add on to that, please, do you think there should be
some sort of immediate action? And, if so, what should that
action be to combat disinformation?
Ms. Bell. So I think climate change is a very useful
parallel here. And again, when we are debating or finding out
more about complex environments, then there is always an area
where things are under debate. The consensus of the scientific
community on climate change and what is needed to mitigate it
is pretty much [audio malfunction] point.
But we still see, I mean, even last week in Texas we saw,
unfortunately, lots of pretty, I think, balanced discussion,
right, the--way across the political spectrum about what the
problems with power supply were. We saw a narrative emerge
about wind turbines, which was not actually reflective of the
true situation of what happened. And you can just trace how
those stories were proliferated in one place and amplified
online until it became the dominant narrative, rather than the
real problems, the real suffering that people were experiencing
on the ground.
So I think climate change is one of those areas, exactly
like health, where we just need--and I think Texas is important
in this because, again, local outlets, the Governor of Texas
went to local news and talked about, I think, the issues in a
much more balanced way. He went on to Shorthouse in the
evening, and it was all about wind turbines again. So I think
that, you know, kind of--we all have to--I think local media
does a great job of keeping people accountable, when there is
[inaudible].
The job here is to think about some of the incentive
structures and what we can do to positively regulate rather
than negatively regulate, rather than saying that certain
speech--I don't think anybody is in favor of that. How do we
make sure that that type of journalism and those types of
systems--it is not just the journalists that are actually
really encouraged.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McEachin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. McEachin. Let's see, it looks
like my buddy Gus Bilirakis is next.
Gus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And I want to tell you--I want to invite you down to Florida
for spring training. It begins this weekend. So, again, I am
the eternal optimist with regard to the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Mr. Doyle. Gus, with the weather we have had in Pittsburgh,
I will come tomorrow.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilirakis. Professor Turley, in 1987 the FCC repealed
the Fairness Doctrine--I know you know that--which required
that television stations air contrasting views to controversial
issues. The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that,
in 1967, Americans only had access to a handful of broadcasting
stations, which were granted licenses by the Federal
Government. And I remember all that, I am old enough. If your
viewpoint was attacked and you didn't have an opportunity to
respond, you might never have been able to defend yourself back
in 1967.
In 2021 we are no longer limited to a few TV stations, and
Americans are increasingly relying on other forms of media to
inform their views. Given the exponential ways Americans can
access news and opinions in 2021, do we really need the
Fairness Doctrine in order to ensure opposing voices are heard?
And are there constitutional concerns with the Fairness
Doctrine today that might not have existed in 1967?
Again, for Professor Turley.
Mr. Turley. Yes, thank you. I should--this may have
bearing, because I will have to answer your question as a Cubs
fan. So, as a Pirates fan, you may want to discount everything
I am about to say.
But I--there are serious concerns. I have really
substantial doubts about whether Red Lion would be upheld in
its original form, if at all. The first issue is really this
intermediate scrutiny standard that was applied, instead of
strict scrutiny. But you really hit on the key, in terms of the
changing context. Back then, the Supreme Court put a lot of
emphasis on the fact that there were very few broadcast
networks, very few choices, and therefore it elevated the
interest of the government. But the court also said that, if
there is evidence that there is, in fact, scarcity, then that
can be put forward, or if there is evidence that they are
controlling the message.
The objection I made to the letter that went to AT&T
actually is the same objection that goes to Red Lion: That
letter seems like an effort to encourage the dropping of some
of these cable news programs, to actually reduce the diversity
of cable programs.
But, if the Supreme Court was to deal with this today, I
think it would see a very different situation, and I think it
would adopt a different analysis. There are a variety of
choices on cable, as well as broadcast. And I think they could
very well not only change the standard but the outcome,
particularly as it applies to cable.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. The next question. In a free
market, when a product or service continually fails to meet an
expected standard, the public either moves to a competitor, or
the opportunity for a new market competitor arises. You touched
on that. I believe this system extends to journalistic
standards, as well. If an outlet fails to report the truth and
damages its reputation as a reputable network, its viewers will
seek out the competition.
Professor Turley again: If the Government were to pull
competitors from the news market and then prevent new
competitors from entering, doesn't that lower accountability
and journalistic standards than would otherwise exist in an
open market for the entities that remain?
Mr. Turley. Well, that indeed is the concern, because if
you go down that road you come close to the state media model.
That is, it is not enough to control the narrative, you also
have to eliminate alternatives to the narrative, right? Because
you--it doesn't work if people can just go to another source
and hear a different view. So that is part of the value of the
diversity of these news outlets that you can choose from.
Now, we do have a serious problem here. My copanelist
touched on this, that we have a new model of this echo
journalism. People have these siloed existences. And echo
journalism is like the comfort food of journalism, right?
People go to these comfort zones, where they only hear news
that confirms their bias. And a lot of these networks are
shaped by that. And a lot of us want to see some breakage there
to try to get back to that. But we have to convince people to
do that. You don't do that by eliminating or curtailing other
news sources. You do that by trying to work with responsible
journalism and journalists in elevating that news.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, somebody did say----
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. As well. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. And Gus, we don't pay attention to
American League teams.
[Laughter.]
All right. Let's see who is next here.
Ah, my good friend Anna Eshoo, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for your testimony.
And Mr. Turley, I am sorry that yours came in late, so I
couldn't read it last night, but I did today.
I want to just take a minute or so for observations,
because I have been listening since we began, and it is always
worthwhile to listen, and to listen well. I think that today's
hearing about misinformation and listening to a lot of things
that have been said simply underscores that we have a lot of
misinformation going on right in the middle of this very
hearing.
The letters that Congressman McNerney and I sent, some have
insisted that those letters violate the First Amendment. The
First Amendment, my friends, starts with four words: ``Congress
shall make no laws.'' So those of you who may not have read the
letters, I suggest that you do.
I would also like to state that the letter asks the
companies questions.
Now, I don't know, Mr. Turley, if you find this so chilling
that it is actually glacial for Congress to ask strong,
important questions. I think we owe that to Ms. Urquiza. How do
you answer to what was put out, and her father is gone? I call
them lies. I don't know what you call them. You call that the
open market, something that is competitive?
We have a problem in this country. It is a large one. It is
a sticky wicket because of our Constitution. But we need to
examine and be frank with each other about what is taking place
in the country.
I would also like to add that, if you want assurance,
Members, Mr. McNerney and I had the nonpartisan First Amendment
experts at CRS, the Congressional Research Service, read every
word and every footnote of our letters and review them against
all relevant case law. They are finalizing the legal analysis
memo, which I will share with all the members of the committee.
Yesterday CRS informed me they see no First Amendment red flags
in the letters whatsoever.
So I thank my Republican pals for elevating this hearing. I
think we have a much broader audience because of the red
herrings that have been raised or put out there before the
hearing. So we have a terrific audience, as I said, probably
larger than what we originally anticipated.
To Ms. O'Brien, I think your testimony is magnificent. And
I think that you--your term that we have truth decay today
couldn't be better capsulized.
Now, Newsmax, One America News Network, Fox News, all use
``news'' in their name. As a well-respected journalist of 30
years, how do you define the word ``news''?
Ms. O'Brien. For me, news is about searching for
verifiable, accurate, factual information, and bringing that to
the public. I think journalists spend every day--good
journalists, at least--trying to figure out how they can serve
their public, how they can bring accuracy and facts and nuance
and context to the people who are watching them or reading
them. And to me, that is news.
Now, CNN also has news in its headline, as well. So I don't
think it is as much as what is in the headline, I think it is
what is the actual practice that you are seeing day in and day
out.
Many news organizations, as I have in my written testimony,
have moved--slid into a lot of opinion, an opinion that is not
necessarily labeled as opinion or highlighted as opinion or
sort of pointed out strongly as opinion. Instead, it just sort
of slides into opinion, and it is very hard to tell the
difference. I think it does not serve the public to have two
debating talking heads who are often not versed in facts, who
are not experts debating. You could have----
Ms. Eshoo. Can I interrupt you? Because I have a few
seconds left.
I would like this to be understood: The idea that Members
asking questions violates the First Amendment is absolutely
absurd. It is our job to ask questions.
So I want to thank all of the witnesses. Even though I
don't agree with you, Mr. Turley, I thank you for coming up
to--well, your appearing on the Hill, but you are probably at
home or in your office. But we appreciate it.
And to Ms. Urquiza, my father--my daddy was the north star
of my life. And so I understand your aching heart. God rest
him.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes
Billy Long.
Billy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
start out here in the spirit of the late, great John Dingell,
asking a yes-or-no question to all of the panelists that we
have here today, all of the witnesses.
And Ms. O'Brien, yes or no, please: Do you support taking
Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News off of the air?
Ms. O'Brien. Before I answer your question, I am going to
tell you, as a reporter, when I ask people yes-or-no questions,
I am trying to very directly force them into something that has
no context,whatsoever. So I will just note that for the
committee here.
I do not support that, is my answer.
Mr. Long. OK. And Ms. Bell, same question for you: Yes or
no, do you support taking Fox News, Newsmax, or One America
News off the air?
Ms. Bell. I am afraid it is going to be the same answer,
which is yes-or-on questions don't necessarily serve the
purpose of----
Mr. Long. OK. Well, due to time constraints, that is what I
am asking. So I will go on to Ms. Urquiza.
Yes or no, do you support taking Fox News, Newsmax, or One
America News off of the air?
Ms. Urquiza. No.
Mr. Long. Thank you. And Mr. Turley, same question to you:
Do you support taking Fox News, Newsmax, or One America News
off of the air?
Mr. Turley. No.
Mr. Long. Thank you. I have a little story I would like to
tell here. A buddy of mine, a constituent--not a constituent, a
colleague. He could move from Tennessee, I guess, if he wanted
to. But I don't want to give you his name, but I will give you
his initials. His initials are Steve Cohen.
And when Steve was a little boy, his father was a
pediatrician. And his father came home one day and said, ``I am
going to vaccinate your older brother,'' who I believe was 7
years old at the time.
Steve was 4, and Steve said, ``Well, can I have the
vaccine?'' This was for polio.
And his father said, ``No, it is not approved for anyone
under 5, and you are 4,'' so he did not give Steve that
vaccine. And 6 months later, Steve Cohen developed polio.
So, when we are talking about facts and science and--one of
my colleagues also this morning, I am not sure which one, said
``Should you be giving two sides on COVID, when the science is
clear''--Ms. Urquiza said science is true. If science is true,
which I don't--different people have their idea of what is true
and what is not in science.
Take, for instance, Robert Kennedy, Jr. Robert Kennedy,
Jr., put out a tweet after Hank Aaron passed away--home run
king--``Hank Aaron's tragic death is part of a wave of
suspicious deaths among elderly closely following
administration of COVID vaccines. He received a Moderna vaccine
on Jan. 5 to inspire other Black Americans to get the
vaccine.'' And this was from an article from The Defender,
Children's Health News & Views, who were taking the position
that, 18 days before he deceased, Henry Aaron had received the
vaccine, indicating that the vaccine was not safe.
So, like I say, science--people have their different
opinion on science. I know the people in my constituency, in my
area, are calling me repeatedly, daily: ``Where can we get the
vaccine? Where can we get the vaccine?''
So when we put stories out like this, that the vaccine is
not safe, is that fake news? Is that the truth? Does it lie
somewhere in the middle? So these are things that I don't think
this hearing today is quite as cut and dry, black and white, as
people would like to think that it is.
And, as far as fake news and things that are put out, and
the--some of you think that the center-right media is putting
out false stories, I wonder about the sins of omission. And one
of the sins of omission that I find is when The Washington Post
fact checker, Glenn Kessler, said that we won't be counting
false Biden claims. I assume he will be like Obama, and tell
the truth. So if a network, a newspaper, or a news outlet
decides that they are not going to report--I watch Morning Joe
pretty much every morning when I am getting ready, on MSNBC.
When the Hunter Biden story was coming down, I paid particular
attention to see if they ever mentioned one time--this was, of
course, before President Biden was sworn in, but, you know, if
they ever mentioned Hunter Biden. And, as far as I could tell,
I have never heard it. And like I said, I watch it daily, so I
have never heard it uttered one time--another, I say, sin of
omission.
So we have sins of omission, where people don't report on
facts and things that are coming out that they don't want to be
known, and yet other people saying that, well, the right,
center-right folks are reporting false news.
And I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. Let's see, next is the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad that we
are here today, talking about disinformation and extremism in
the media. And I want to be clear where I stand.
I worry about this, particularly as a Black American. And
with this being Black History Month, let me just highlight some
of the--how this has really turned violent, and has not been
good for people of color in this country historically. And I
know that, for a lot of people, this all centers around First
Amendment.
But let's go back to 1915. D.W. Griffith had a hit movie
called ``Birth of a Nation'' that was presented as factual,
that was presented as real, and much of the media of the day
presented it as real and factual. And, as a result of that,
people went to the streets, targeted African Americans. There
were riots, there were fires because disinformation was
presented as real. And part of the information in the movie was
presented was that Whites were victimized by Blacks in the form
of voter fraud.
And so you fast forward 106 years later in 2021, and you
have people that decided they were going to come to the Capitol
because of a lot of the similar disinformation that places like
Atlanta and Milwaukee and Detroit victimized them and stole an
election from them.
And so, trying to figure out the freedom of speech versus
other people's safety, you know, what Oliver Wendell Holmes
talked about, people's safety, how you distinguish between the
two, I think that this is a very serious conversation that we
are having.
I wanted to ask Ms. O'Brien: Are there any incentives that
exist that can be used for journalists and publishers to bring
more context and nuance to their news and commentary, so that
viewers can better understand what they are watching,
especially when it comes to a lot of the more extreme views
that can lead to violence?
Ms. O'Brien. So first, as you point out, the problem of
misinformation isn't a new problem. It is not something that
popped up a couple of years ago and now we are going to tackle
it for the first time. Technology has obviously changed how
that problem now gets to the public. And I think that is what
brings us here to where we are today.
I think there is this opportunity for journalists to do
better. Often there are financial incentives that make
journalists want to do better, or news organizations that hire
journalists to do better. But actually, a lot of the way talk
is, it actually financially is quite inexpensive. And so it is
much cheaper to have dueling talking heads rather than having a
long, contextual, nuanced, explanatory conversation.
Like you, there is--very upsetting to see the Confederate
flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. That was very
problematic to me, as a biracial woman here in America.
Lies, obviously, have real implications. To listen to Ms.
Urquiza's testimony, it is heartbreaking, right? I mean, for
everybody.
And again, I don't think facts belong to a party. I don't
think we should think of this as a partisan issue. Every single
person, regardless of who votes for you, what State you are in,
what side of the aisle you are on, you should want to have more
facts and accuracy that is being disseminated to the people who
voted you into office. That is what you should all want.
So, yes, I agree with--very problematic. At the end of the
day, I think the pressure from the public will go a long way,
not pressure from Congress. As I have said in my remarks--and I
have reiterated a couple of times--I don't think the role of
government is to do that. I think viewers have to say no more
elevating misinformation.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
Let's see, Markwayne Mullin, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for all the
panelists that are here today.
And, you know, obviously, this is about getting down to the
problem we have with the media, and with the social media, as--
alike. And I appreciate the Democrats bringing this up. We have
been talking about this for 4 years, especially with the whole
Russia collusion narrative to which the media drawled for so
many years--4 years, in fact. And that was complete
misinformation that was out there.
And while I know this one seems to be focusing on Fox and
left outlets, Ms. O'Brien, do you believe that MSNBC and CNN
are also guilty of misinformation?
Ms. O'Brien. Sir, I am concerned that you did not read my
written testimony fully, or you would be able to know that.
Mr. Mullin. No, I read it----
Ms. O'Brien. I am being sarcastic.
Mr. Mullin. I want to hear it.
Ms. O'Brien. Absolutely, yes. Clearly, and I state that
very clearly in my testimony----
Mr. Mullin. You did.
Ms. O'Brien [continuing]. That this is not an issue that--
--
Mr. Mullin. But--and Ms. O'Brien, I appreciate that. But
the focus has been on Fox and the left media. And you have been
very clear about where you lie on that. And I wanted to make it
very clear. Your testimony absolutely made it clear, on the
written testimony. But I hadn't heard you say that. So I
appreciate you stating that.
Mr. Turley, as I stated before, after the 2016 election
with Hillary Clinton, the left-wing media repeatedly talked
about the Russia collusion and their interference within the
election. And given this misinformation by the left wing, do
you think the House Democrats' letter only pressing providers
who provide conservative media channels and not CNN and MSNBC
and other left-wing channels is correct? And what should be
done about it?
Mr. Turley. Well, thank you for that. I actually didn't get
a chance to respond to Representative Eshoo when she was
addressing me, and this touches on that.
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Mr. Turley. I mean, first of all, I am not too sure the
purpose of submitting that letter to the CRS to look for First
Amendment violations, because most of us haven't said the
letter violates the First Amendment any more than the
Endangered Species Act. I said in my testimony that I--that
free speech is not contained entirely within the First
Amendment. This is an old spin people put on and say, ``Well,
this isn't a free speech issue, because the First Amendment
only applies to the government.'' Well, no, free speech goes
beyond the First Amendment. It is something that some of us
view as a human right.
And the question is, does that letter impinge upon or
threaten free speech or the free press, and I think it does.
Making a statement including a question mark at the end of it
doesn't change the import of the statements. Writing to these
companies and saying, ``So why are you still airing Fox?'' The
fact that that is a question doesn't hide the fact that it is
really meant as a rather audible statement. And the letter went
out with a building movement to try to pressure cable companies
to get rid of these networks.
What if you succeed? Fox was the most-watched cable news
program of 2020. So you would have tens of millions of people
that would have to either choose between those networks that
the letter does not list, or just not watch anything at all.
And I give Soledad credit for this. I mean, she has been
critical of networks on the other side, and so have I. I have
been critical and on both sides, I hope. But the letter is not.
I mean, the letter is quite focused on only those networks
viewed as conservative leaning.
Mr. Mullin. Right. In 2017 Rachel Maddow of MSNBC claimed
that Secretary Rex Tillerson was being a Russian agent. I think
that is--which is absolutely false. And that was an extreme
view.
And then the House Democrats' letter asked the CEOs to
outline the actions they are taking against misinformation. And
my question to you, sir, is who should be the one deciding what
is an extreme and what is disinformation out there?
Mr. Turley. You know, this is where I think Soledad O'Brien
and I will probably end up having a slight divergence, and this
may be because I am a relic.
[Laughter.]
I do follow this sort of outdated notion of free press and
free speech. I am not comfortable with people who say, ``Look,
we are going to let you have free speech, free press, as long
as you are not a liar, as long as you are not giving
disinformation.'' I have a feeling that Soledad and I agree on
a lot of stuff that is disinformation.
In fact, I have seen some of her work, and I agree with it.
But the question is, What do we do with that? That is,
Soledad, I think, made a--forgive me for referring to your
first name, it is an old habit. But it was referring to both
sides of this, and trying to get viewers to make that decision.
I am all in on that. It just--is there something more there, in
terms of trying to stop liars from lying? And that is where I
get off the train.
Mr. Mullin. Right. Well, thank you.
My time is up and, Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. Let's see who is next
here.
Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. Let
me say good afternoon to all of you, and thank you very much to
the witnesses for your testimony today. Mr. Chairman, you are
absolutely right. This is a debate that we must have if we are
going to protect this democracy. And so thank you for convening
this hearing. This is very, very timely.
I have very serious concerns that the dissemination of
election-related disinformation that we witnessed in the days
leading up to and, most harmfully, the days following the
election will undermine access to the ballot box for
underrepresented communities in future elections.
Many State legislatures across the country have already
started the process of changing their election laws that will
restrict access to the ballot box, specifically for voters of
color. Many of these State officials proclaim the need for
these changes are due to public distrust in the electoral
process, and they often cite disinformation and conspiracy
theories that have been spread by popular media outlets.
And so I am going to stay with you, Ms. O'Brien. You have
been in the hot seat all day, and just thank you so very much
for your brilliance. How does the spread of disinformation by
the media disenfranchise marginalized communities?
Ms. O'Brien. It is my opinion that, when you give a
platform to a lie, it travels very quickly and across many
other platforms. And so often I have found that journalists who
even understand that they are having someone on whose opinion
that they believe is not accurate, inaccurate, misinformation,
they will bring them on in order to argue with them.
I think, personally, it is a way to seem tougher, but it is
also good TV, meaning it is dynamic, it sometimes involves
arguing, it has a lot of drama to it. Well, I believe what ends
up happening, by elevating disinformation, whether it is being
challenged well, challenged not well, challenged not at all,
you give a platform to something that is not true.
And of course, I think vulnerable communities are often
most at risk for disinformation. A lot of those communities, as
we spoke about earlier, local media does not exist anymore. We
have lost, what, 2,100 local newspapers. And so that means that
they are sometimes in a news desert. And so it is very, very
problematic that they are getting misinformation,
disinformation, or no information at all. It is very, very
damaging. I think it has dire consequences.
Mr. Butterfield. Over the years, Ms. O'Brien, you have
effectively--and I watched you many, many times--you have
effectively exercised your First Amendment rights to free
speech as a member of the press. How do journalists effectuate
more responsible journalism throughout the industry to solve
this pervasive problem and protect our voters?
Ms. O'Brien. I think most journalists want to do a good
job. Again, I--the journalists that I know work really hard.
I think, actually, Congressman Kinzinger said it a little
bit earlier, which was, as much as Congress members have to
look at themselves and the messages that they are spreading to
their constituents, journalists have to do the same. And news
organizations have to assess what do we do well, what do we do
wrong, how can we be better, how do we serve the public. That
is the gig. That is the job. And so, without that self-
reflection, I think we are going to continue to make, as a
whole, media, continue to make a lot of the same mistakes.
Again, I don't think Congress has a role in regulating it.
I think news organizations should say ``We are here to serve
the public. This is what we are supposed to do. How do we do a
better job?''
Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Chairman, I understand we may have
four votes that are coming up right now, and so I am going to
make this my last question.
I want to talk about local news, Ms. O'Brien, finally: How
does the lack of robust local news coverage and the growing
spread of disinformation impact the information needs of our
communities?
Ms. O'Brien. It is an absolutely huge problem. I think you
have a void that is filled with just things that aren't true,
or things that are not centered in a community.
For example, on ``Matter of Fact'' the other day--which is
a show that is carried by affiliates, we are in all the local
markets--we did the story of a young woman who is reaching out
to her constituents in her news--you know, around her who are
served by her newspaper, because they couldn't figure out how
to get online to actually sign up for a vaccine, right? And so
she literally, by herself--she is a reporter--literally helps
connect those people to vaccines. I mean, that is a local
reporter doing the work of journalism, helping people solve a
problem, bringing them information. I would like to see more of
that. As those newspapers die, it is very, very problematic.
Mr. Butterfield. All right, well, thank you so very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to give back a few seconds and
give Mr. Walberg a running start. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. And you are correct,
there are four votes called on the floor. We are not going to
recess, so Members pick and choose your time to get down to the
floor and get back in time for your speech.
OK, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My preface is saying
I am a proud father of a journalist son who, while at one of
the major Chicago newspapers, received a nomination for a
Pulitzer, who told me once when he first went to that major
paper, when I asked him somewhat jokingly--somewhat--``Hey, be
good to some of us conservative Republicans, OK?,'' and he told
me, ``Listen, Dad. You would want me to do exactly what I have
been trained, and that is to report the facts.''
At another time in his life, later on, he said, ``Dad,
sometimes it is very, very difficult determining what is fact
and what is fiction.'' So we do have a challenge here. And I
appreciate the hearing today. But, Mr. Chairman, I may be
wrong, but I see--at least I perceive--a deliberate attempt by
the majority to sanitize the airwaves of content that does not
conform to their preferred political philosophies.
Now, disinformation and fake news are real problems. But
the solution is not to limit free speech. In fact, it is just
the opposite. Robust debate and free speech enables us to
better fight the spread of disinformation.
Sadly, at least it appears that my colleagues seem to be
focused on squashing political dissent, as their letter claims
that conservative news outlets have, and I quote, ``long been
conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to
real harm,'' end quote.
I would like to remind my colleagues of what happened in
January 2019, when CNN, along with various other liberal media
outlets, ran editorial content baselessly calling Covington
Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann a racist. If we are
talking about harmful content, CNN's coverage of that incident
resulted directly in that boy, his parents, and his classmates
receiving death threats and harassment. Of course, a subsequent
investigation found many of the facts initially reported were
inaccurate and misleading. As a result, Mr. Sandmann sued CNN
for defamation, and the network settled the case.
Even though CNN recklessly defamed a teenager, Republicans
did not call for broadcasters to remove CNN from their
programming. Why? Because the system worked. Our Nation's
vigorous libel and slander laws incentivize networks to tell
the truth. And when they don't, they pay the consequences.
Professor Turley, do you agree that our defamation laws are
a strong deterrent against lying on television, or would a
return to the Fairness Doctrine be a better approach?
Mr. Turley. I do not favor a return to the Fairness
Doctrine because I do not like government regulation of the
media.
I also think that there are strong First Amendment
arguments that can be made against the doctrine.
I really do appreciate you raising the Sandmann case,
because it was really quite disturbing. That story was treated
as true because people wanted it to be true. They--it fit the
narrative, and it just happened to involve a teenage kid who
was ground up by the story and treated as a vicious and violent
racist. Even after he was cleared of that whole story, when he
was accepted in college a professor went online and said,
``Don't worry, we are going to follow him around campus to
watch if he goes out of line.''
That is what I am talking about, of a nation addicted to
rage and people pretending that they are tired of it when they
need it, they need the rage.
Mr. Walberg. And that is----
Mr. Turley. And people like Sandmann are hurt by it.
Mr. Walberg. Yes, and that is a chilling, chilling issue
there.
Professor Turley, in your testimony you cite the first
question in my colleagues' letter as the most troublesome. And
this question asked companies what moral or ethical principles
they apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take
adverse action against the channel.
I would note that, if my colleagues truly cared about
morality and coming together in unity after the horrendous
attack on our Capitol, they surely would not be holding a
hearing as deeply divisive as this. I am reminded of President
Biden's inaugural address in which he invoked, and I quote,
``the better angels of our nature with malice toward none, with
charity for all.''
That being said, Professor Turley, can you please elaborate
on the fundamental problem with imposing selective morality
codes on news coverage and access for networks like Fox News
and Newsmax? Doesn't this lead us directly down the path of
government censorship?
Mr. Turley. Well, this is the problem of a statement
masquerading as a question. To say what morality rule you apply
in determining whether to continue to air certain channels,
where the numbers are not there to apply morality codes--we
used to have those. Atheists, feminists, others were barred
from publications under these types of morality rules. And it
was very chilling. And when I talked about the chilling--of
that letter, that is one of those issues that I flagged.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you----
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Cardenas.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Doyle. And also
I would like to thank Ranking Member Latta for us having this
hearing today.
And I would like to say that I don't find this hearing to
be very divisive. I think that we are probably so boring that
we are probably losing our seven listeners who bothered to even
chime in today. So we certainly aren't as exciting as some of
our other news outlets, or supposed news outlets, like to be. I
really believe that far too often they are opinion givers, and
not so much news outlets.
I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Ms.
Urquiza. My heart goes out to you and your family, and to the
500,000 families who have experienced, unfortunately, what your
family experienced, the loss of your father. So thank you for
being with us today, and your willingness to share your
important story with all of us.
And also I would like to enter into the record a letter
from the National Hispanic Media Coalition on today's topic of
discussion--into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Cardenas. I am glad we have this opportunity to talk
about the serious problem we are seeing with disinformation and
misinformation that traditionally has--we have experienced the
United States for hundreds of years. But, more importantly, it
is now very prevalent and very, very massively distributed by
our news outlets and many other outlets that we will get to in
another hearing when we talk about our social media platforms.
It is a problem when some of my colleagues who are
incredibly smart are susceptible to the spread of dangerous
disinformation, such as claims that wearing masks are
ineffective measures when it comes to preventing the lethal
coronavirus. It is this kind of disinformation and
misinformation of facts perpetuated by certain outlets, on top
of the bungled response by the Trump administration, that has
increased the severity and the number of deaths from this
pandemic.
And it is very important for us to understand that, like I
said earlier, this has been going on for hundreds of years.
As a little boy born and raised in the United States of
America, here in Los Angeles, I have witnessed with my ears and
my eyes--and broken hearted--to see how people treated my
parents, who were immigrants from Mexico. And just because of
the color of their skin, or the fact that they had 11 children,
I heard the derogatory things that they would say about them.
For God's sake, my father, who put food on the table for 13
people every single day with a first-grade education, who
worked sometimes two and three jobs to do so, was a proud,
hardworking person. And in America they call Mexicans lazy.
Now, that is disinformation and misinformation that can
prove fatal. For example, right now, with the former President
of the United States, Trump, trying to encourage people to
believe that people who are Chinese or Asian are the cause of
why so many Americans have died from the coronavirus. So much
so, it is dangerous because there are attacks on Asians in
America that are at a high right now.
And yes, I truly do believe that certain outlets permeated
that by using derogatory labels for what the coronavirus is.
And yes, the President of the United States permeating those
lies.
Ms. Bell, many have discussed the role that social media
has played in the spread of disinformation. In your testimony
you talk about the relationship between social media and
traditional media and how social media feeds off of traditional
media outlets. Can you talk about how this pattern plays out,
and the influence that it has on the amplification of
disinformation?
Ms. Bell. Yes, of course. Thank you for the question. It
is--well, so when we take--I think your point about masks is a
good one.
You might come across--I came across a headline, actually,
from one of the cable news channels we have been discussing
that was put out on the 13th of October, just saying there is
no evidence supporting the fact that masks stop coronavirus.
But I saw it for a second on a Twitter feed, or in--retweeted,
I think, kind of several thousand times. And, you know, if you
stopped, went back to the source, watched the segment, it
wasn't the only thing that was said. But it was the only thing
that many people saw, and it could have been put out with bad
faith around that.
There are teams of people in news rooms that I think
actually clip and promote material on social media because it
is the only way that they can reach substantial parts of their
audience. So, even if you are presenting what seems like a
balanced view, you can still put out something on social media
which speaks to perhaps a more extreme or less truth-based
view. And the problem is that we--understanding that dynamic is
hard, because we do not have the data that say, ``How did this
story spread, who saw it, when did they see it, what effective
does it have, what do people do next?''
So I think that this is actually a really solvable problem.
Understanding more about this complex environment is something
that--you know, some of us are spending our lives doing this at
the moment. And I think that it is one way to make progress, is
really understanding those dynamics. The amount of material
that we have to really examine what effect it has is limited.
And I think that--I wish that was different.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cardenas. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Let's see, Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the
hearing. My first question is for witness O'Brien.
Did you report on the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson,
Missouri?
Ms. O'Brien. I did not.
Mr. Duncan. You didn't?
Ms. O'Brien. No, sir. I left daily news approximately 8
years ago, 9 years ago. So, if you are talking about doing,
like, live, rolling coverage on cable TV, for that story I did
not go to Ferguson. I did not report on that story as a
reporter.
Mr. Duncan. OK. But you did tweet out and you hashtagged
Black Out Black Friday about the ``Hands up, don't shoot''
narrative. Is that correct?
Ms. O'Brien. I tweet out millions of things, so I could not
confirm that for you, sir.
Mr. Duncan. OK. The point I am trying to make here, Ms.
O'Brien, is that the ``Hands up, don't shoot'' narrative was a
fabrication actually put forward by Dorian Johnson, witness
number 101. It was a fabrication that was proven incorrect over
and over. In fact, there is a Washington Post article dated
March 16, 2015, that says ``Hands up, don't shoot'' was built
on a lie.
So all the news services--MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News,
NPR--all reported the same thing about ``Hands up, don't
shoot.'' But it was a fabrication. And I am not advocating for
them to be shut down because of reporting on a fabrication. In
fact, I think that a lot of times there is a rush to report
first, whether it is a blog, or whether it is a tweet, or
whether it is a Facebook post, or whether it is an actual news
service, a cable news network like CNN, or MSNBC, or even Fox
News, a rush to report that sometimes the investigation is not
done. In fact, you actually alluded to that--or Marc Veasey, or
Cardenas, or somebody related to that earlier--that it is
spread on a lot of different platforms quickly, and ofttimes it
is based on no investigation.
Let me just give some examples here. CNN's Anderson Cooper
on March 4th said that coronavirus wasn't nearly as deadly as
the flu. Sanjay Gupta said on March 2nd to ``Headline News''
that, if you are a healthy person, you don't need a mask. Let's
see, CNN's Ali Velshi said, talking about the protests last
summer, talked about a peaceful protest in front of a burning
building. CNN's Chris Cuomo said on June 2nd, ``Please show me
where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and
peaceful.''
I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is a
lot of misreporting, rushed reporting--I wouldn't call them
lies, I would just call them quick judgments on a lot of
information that is out there that the left is trying to say
that are lies now, and they are trying to say that places like
Fox News and other broadcasters ought to be shut down. I
disagree with that, because you can apply that same standard to
all of these--and I say all of the news networks--in the rush
to be first, in order to monetize.
And this is all about monetization, to monetize that tweet,
that blog, that Facebook post, or that news story that rushes
people to the TV in order to find out what is going on. We saw
it yesterday with Tiger Woods. It wasn't a fabrication, but
there was a rush to the TV of folks to see what was going on.
And so I want to just turn to Professor Turley real quick
and--in the little bit of time I have left. And my colleagues
across the aisle are trying to say that they are having today's
hearing to emphasize local broadcasters. But if they succeed in
canceling out large networks, wouldn't it be easier for them
then to cancel out local broadcasters? Don't they face the same
threat, Mr. Turley?
Mr. Turley. Well, indeed, that is part of the slippery
slope that I think that this committee should avoid, that once
you start to allow government to regulate, or to answer the
questions in the affirmative that were asked in that letter,
you do end up on that slippery slope. You debate--you end up
deciding what is disinformation and what is not, who would be
held accountable, who would be taken off the air. And the
result will be less diversity in the news media. And then we
could have a single echo chamber, which is not an improvement
of having multiple echo chambers. I prefer no echo chambers.
When Ms. O'Brien and I first met in the media business, I
think that there was still a media that wasn't based on an echo
chamber. You know, there was information-driven media. The
market has changed, and we should all focus on that. But
bringing the government in, putting that nose within the tent,
has never been a good thing for free speech or the free press.
Mr. Duncan. My time is out. And Mr. Chairman, I just ask
that we apply the same standard to all of the media outlets as
you are trying to apply to the right-leaning media outlets.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman, the gentleman yields
back. Let's see, the Chair now recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing today. It is obvious to everyone that the news
landscape has changed considerably over the past 20 years, and
especially over the past 4. The rise of cable news changed the
news cycle and the way we see live events unfold. The old media
saying, it is--``if it bleeds, it leads.''
Too often we have seen horrific events like mass shootings
replayed on screens, and the killers become instantly famous.
The Columbine shooting in 1999 was one of the first widely
covered shootings that plastered the names and faces of the
shooters all over the news. It has led to some following in a
cultlike fashion.
For example, the shooter in the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings
kept a detailed journal with clippings from previous school
shootings, including Columbine. A 2014 investigation by ABC
News identified that, with 17 attacks and another 36 alleged
plots or serious threats against schools since the assault on
Columbine High School, that can be tied to the 1999 massacre.
Ms. O'Brien, thank you for being here. And I don't know if
you remember me. We met at the Union Club in Chicago, and we
took a picture with the Lieutenant Governor. So great to see
you, and great--you know, to all the work that you do, you do a
fantastic job. Have you ever been a part of any conversation
about the violence that was depicted in the media, and what
have journalists wrestled with in these conversations?
Ms. O'Brien. Yes, and thank you, and yes, I think that
there are lots of conversations about how violence is depicted
in the media, and I think the point of a good editorial debate
is to come to the understanding of what makes sense. And that
is why you want a diverse group of people around the table. You
really want a lot of input on that.
I think it is often--we heard from a previous speaker about
sort of the rush to investigation, and in those editorial
meetings you have the opportunity to slow it down, to actually
pose challenging questions to each other. I think of the
question, Is something a ``protest,'' is it a ``melee,'' is it
a ``mob,'' you know, all those things have varying degrees of
definition. You know, what exactly are we looking at?
When I was covering Hurricane Katrina many years ago, I
remember we all walked around with Merriam-Webster
dictionaries, right, to talk about ``evacuees,'' or
``refugees.'' What exactly is the terminology? So, yes, that is
clearly a conversation of debate in every news room I have ever
been in.
Ms. Kelly. And to your knowledge, do most newsrooms have a
procedure for handling mass shootings?
Ms. O'Brien. That I could not answer for you across the
board for most news rooms. I would not have access to that
information.
Ms. Kelly. Recently there seems to have been a push not to
name shooters, so they don't gain any notoriety or fame. Do you
agree with this approach?
And do you have any thoughts on how these events could be
covered, I guess, in a more--I don't know if it is a
responsible way, a compassionate way?
Ms. O'Brien. That is a very interesting question, because I
often know families who have lost children to mass shootings,
and it is devastating. At the same time, I think the name of
the shooter is part of the narrative of what happened.
But again, I think that is a conversation that has
happened--I both had that conversation kind of in the macro,
but never actually--I have had to be on air naming or not
naming a shooter. So it has been a little bit of an academic
exercise. But I have now many friends who have lost their
children in horrific ways, and I understand the emotion behind
not wanting to give more notoriety to somebody who has
committed a horrific crime.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
Professor Bell, do you have any thoughts about this?
Ms. Bell. Yes, there are guidelines for covering mass
shootings. I think it is a great example of what actually the
media has learned, again, around covering things like people
who take their own lives. There are guidelines now because we
know more about the media, effects of things, as you correctly
identify. We know more about what motivates mass shooters, and
we know how to frame that coverage.
There is a really difficult line to walk, though, between
keeping an accurate public record and illuminating stories in
ways which actually just cause more harm. And I do think that
this kind of rather obscure area of, you know, media studies,
or media effect studies is something, actually, that, you know,
we need to be doing much, much more of, because we can now
measure some of those effects. We can actually measure whether
or not changing coverage has a positive effect.
So there are guidelines. People are following them a lot
more. And I think, on the whole, it is beneficial, but it is
always difficult to get those contextual pulls right.
Ms. Kelly. Well, let me ask you this quickly.
Ms. Bell. Sure.
Ms. Kelly. When traditional local media are competing
against social media, is there a path to getting truth and fact
to catch up on, instead of bombastic opinion?
Ms. Bell. Yes. I think, again, it is just a--I think,
again, it is a balance. We have to learn that new cadence about
all of those new sources. It is a really complex area now, just
even to be a local reporter, I think, or especially to be a
local reporter.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, I am----
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let's see.
Mr. Curtis, you have 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turley, I would like to ask you some questions, and I
will give you a minute to think about it while I share some
thoughts. And as I share these thoughts, I would like my
colleagues to know that I am genuinely not trying to point out
any specific individual in Congress or either--any party, but
rather make a point.
So Mr. Turley, a U.S. citizen speaking to Congress may be
asked to testify under oath. We, the people on the other side
of the table, are not under oath, nor are we under oath when we
speak on the House floor. Have you--Mr. Turley, have you ever
heard a Member of Congress use a congressional platform to say
something that was not true?
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. OK. I don't think that would take very many of
us very long to answer. And here again, I am not referring,
like, to a single party.
Likewise, have you ever heard a Member of Congress, while
using their 5 minutes in a committee--committee time, worry
more about getting on the news than addressing meaningful
discussion?
Mr. Turley. Perish the thought, but yes.
Mr. Curtis. Yes, OK. Is it fair to say that the words of
congressmen--our hearings, our speeches, et cetera--are really,
really good fodder for the cable network TVs, and that they
spend hours of their time talking about the lies and
misrepresentations that some of our colleagues make in
Congress?
Mr. Turley. Yes.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. And in fact, so those of my colleagues who
have expressed frustration with this hearing, I think this may
be at the heart of it, is that this very hearing itself becomes
fodder, right, for the cable network TVs to do what they do.
And I want to point out that that is very frustrating.
When my colleagues say something that is not true, it is
frustrating. When the media says something that is not
accurate, it is frustrating. But there is this crazy thing
called the First Amendment, right? And we have heard from the
chairman in his opening remarks, this comment--Mr. Chairman, I
tried to write down, I am paraphrasing--it is the
responsibility of this committee to hold these institutions to
a higher standard.
And I think Mr. Turley, that is the crux of a lot we are
talking about today is, yes, it is frustrating. But that
standard means that we have to deny the First Amendment. Am I
seeing that right, or am I looking at that wrong?
Mr. Turley. No, you know, free speech has a cost. I mean,
free speech has a cost because many of us in the free speech
community end up defending people who we despise, grotesque
people who say awful things. But we have to protect their
ability to speak, so that we protect society as a whole.
Because free speech does more than just allow individuals to
speak, it protects us against abuses, against tyranny, against
the ills that come from the lack of free speech.
Mr. Curtis. I am also really troubled by this, like, who
gets to be the judge. So it--on one hand, it feels like, well,
the truth is the truth, right? But we have heard some of my
colleagues bring up instances that--or perhaps mistakes, or
rush to judgments and things like that. And somehow, that one
source or one person could be the arbiter of truth and make
that decision seems farfetched to me. Would you agree with
that?
Mr. Turley. Yes, and that is precisely what we hoped to
avoid, not just in the First Amendment but also embracing free
speech values generally.
Mr. Curtis. So, in just the little bit of time we have
left, I would like to explore something with you, and that is
if we go back to 2016, when Russia came in and used--I will use
a specific here, and I know there is lots of generalities--the
Facebook platform to spread misinformation, I found myself
saying, like, ``Who believes Facebook?,'' right? But apparently
people do.
And so I guess my question to you is, How do we help
educate people? How do we help people understand that they
can't just accept something at face value on--whether it is
cable TV or Facebook?
Like, how do we get to that point, where we get people to
be more thoughtful about the information they are consuming and
believing?
Mr. Turley. This may be a generational issue. You know, I
get up around 6:00 to blog, and my kids will get up to go to
school--when they used to go to school--and they will often
ask, ``What are you writing on?'' And I will tell them. And I
was always surprised when they would say, ``But is that true?''
So we were talking about a story, and they would say, ``But is
that true?''
When I grew up, if Walter Cronkite said something, it was
true. You didn't question it. My kids question everything. They
question every source. They compare sources. They are a lot
more savvy than people give them credit for. And I think that,
unfortunately, that is the reality of the new media that we
live in.
Mr. Curtis. We are, regretfully, out of time. I wish we had
more time to talk about the Walter Cronkite era, which I
remember.
And I wish we had a whole hearing just on that, Mr.
Chairman. I yield my time. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
Let's see, the gentlelady from New York, Miss Rice, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Urquiza, first, let me offer you my condolences, as
everyone else has, for your profound loss.
In your written testimony you talked about how your father
was in the Reserves. He was a Reserve Officer Training Corps,
and had great reverence for the military and, in fact, had
three brothers who served in the military himself, as he would
have had he not been involved in a hunting accident. I mean, it
is clear that he had a strong love of country and instilled in
you the values of patriotism and the military's role in keeping
your--our freedom.
As someone who had great respect for military leaders,
how--do you think that that had a particular effect or reason
behind how he interpreted what President Trump, who was then
our commander in chief, was saying about COVID-19, and whether
it was safe, what steps he should take to make himself safe?
Ms. Urquiza. Thanks for asking that, and that is exactly
why I included that in my written testimony. My dad intended to
go into the military, and every single one of his brothers were
able to. He always respected every single President as the
commander in chief. It was my father who taught me the duty of
country.
We watched the History Channel together constantly, and he
always brought home the point that, during times of crisis, it
is important to listen to the person in charge. They are going
to orient us toward safety. So absolutely, his orientation
since he was 14 years old in ROTC was to listen to the
President and act from there.
Miss Rice. Well, let me say that he--you are doing him very
proud today, if I can call you Kristin, really. I mean, you are
just an amazing woman.
And I think it is important to note that one in five of the
insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6th were
veterans. And, you know, in the military you are taught to
follow orders. Like you said, you know, you do this for the
good of the country to keep our democracy safe. And,
unfortunately, I think this is also why many, you know,
veterans and service members are particularly susceptible to
disinformation and misinformation when it comes from our--
especially when it comes from our commander in chief, and when
it is disseminated so broadly and without verification,
primarily on cable news. So thank you so much for being with us
here today.
And Ms. O'Brien, you know, I remember the day like it was
yesterday when I heard Kellyanne Conway being interviewed. And
I don't know if she can get credit for coining the phrase
``alternative facts,'' but I remember being stunned when she
said those words. And, you know, I think it is so interesting.
You know, you are talking--how you talk about truth decay.
So just a couple of things. I mean, how do you think that
we got here? I know that is a really broad question, but how do
you think that we got here?
And have you come across any, you know, stories or--about
veterans or service members, and if their standards--you know,
if being military actually affects their susceptibility to
these kind--this kind of a call to arms, if you will.
Ms. O'Brien. Thank you. I have to note that the term
``truth decay'' was coined by Michael Rich of the Rand
Corporation. So I want to be very clear that that was his idea,
and also his book, as well, in its fourth reading.
I have not, and I have not actually been tracking if
veterans are extra susceptible. And hearing what Kristin was
saying, I think it raises some really interesting questions.
And yes, there is no question that you hear the word
``alternative facts,'' and you think, why is this interview not
being stopped right now? And why is this person being returned
to a conversation, when they are telling you that they have a
whole other set of facts? There is not a thing. Alternative
facts are not a thing.
And so that was extremely disappointing to me. I have
talked about it many times. I think it is a very good example
of a media that has really failed to say there are not
alternative facts. There are facts, and we can discuss facts.
And if you want to talk about facts, you are welcome on this
air. If you are going to lie, you are not welcome.
Miss Rice. Well, thank you so much for, as a journalist,
you know, focusing on the facts, because I think that we have
kind of lost our way when it comes to reporting facts, as
opposed to opinion.
And I also just want to thank our colleague, Mr. Kinzinger,
for his comments, because I do think that he is right, that it
is incumbent upon us, as Members, to support facts and support
other colleagues who actually talk about facts and focus on the
facts. So I want to thank him for his comments.
And my time is up, and I yield back. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
Let's see, my good buddy from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, just 2
weeks ago, China's National Radio and Television Administration
banned BBC World News from broadcasting in China because it
found BBC's reports ``seriously violate'' broadcast guidelines,
including--and I quote again--``the requirement that news
should be truthful and fair, and not harm China's national
interest.''
So I have to say I am disappointed and seriously blown away
by my House Democrat colleagues' letter to the broadcasters,
pressuring them to remove conservative news channels from their
networks, a letter that looks eerily similar to the statement
released by the CCP when it banned BBC. So this begs the
question, Does the American Government have the authority to
dictate what can and cannot be broadcast to the American
people? I suggest it does not. But Democrats here on this
committee seem to think that it should.
So, Professor Turley, I think you have alluded to this,
maybe even you have answered it, but I want to get it one more
time. Is it constitutional for Members of Congress to pressure
private businesses to do what Congress cannot legally do
itself?
Mr. Turley. Well, it is constitutional in the sense that it
isn't expressly prohibited by the First Amendment. But it is an
attack on free speech.
You know, we should be concerned when Members are trying to
do indirectly what they cannot do directly. And this creates
what is sometimes referred to as the Little Brother problem.
You know, we do have a really good system in dealing with Big
Brother and avoiding state media. But what we have seen in the
last few years is that the use of private companies like
Twitter and Facebook is far more damaging to free speech.
It is no accident that recently Vladimir Putin called out
Twitter and Facebook and said, ``You are endangering democratic
institutions.'' This is one of most authoritarian figures in
the world. He obviously cares nothing about democratic
institutions, but he seemed to indicate an almost grudgingly
respectful view that Twitter and these companies could achieve
this level of control, something that exceeds his own
abilities.
And we have to sort of grapple with this, of the impact. It
is sort of like if we put all of our attention--if free speech
is only confined to the First Amendment, it is like having a
house with barriers and bolts on the front door, but all the
windows and the back door are open.
Mr. Johnson. OK----
Mr. Turley. You give the appearance of free speech but not
the reality or security.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, based on what I am hearing, Mr.
Turley, from the other side of the aisle, if I didn't know
better, I would think that Fox News or Newsmax issued a direct
rallying call to storm the Capitol on January 6th. But all of
us know nothing even close to that happened. In fact, all of
the intelligence suggests that any planning for the riots
occurred predominantly on social media, including on Facebook.
Even Chairman Pallone this week sent a letter to Facebook
demanding answers for their role in knowingly permitting
extremism and disinformation to grow on their platform.
So, Professor Turley, what role does the lack of neutral
journalism in mainstream media play in pushing people to social
media platforms, where algorithms keep people hooked on
incendiary content?
Mr. Turley. Well, I think this is what we touched on
earlier, that the polls show that the respect for the media is
at an all-time low. People just don't trust the media. And I
can see why, because there are now these siloed echo chamber
media outlets. They have a lot of false information. And so
people go and search for it themselves, usually on social
media.
But, you know, I think the solution is not to try to
regulate through these private companies. If you look at
Europe, you know, they have--they really plunged into speech
controls and criminalization. It hasn't reduced extreme speech.
It hasn't reduced extremist groups. They are flourishing. What
it has done is actually reduced free speech.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, look, I fully support upholding the
First Amendment, and I don't believe it is appropriate for
Members of Congress to pressure private companies to stop
airing things that they don't ideologically agree with.
However, there still lies the issue that media
disinformation is a real problem, and especially when people
look to those sources for the truth, for an unbiased and
factual account of the news. How do you suggest networks curb
disinformation and come in line with the First Amendment?
Mr. Doyle. And please be brief, Mr. Turley, his time is up.
So I will let you answer the question.
Mr. Turley. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I am hoping that the market will pressure some of
these echo chambers to open up. I think people are going to
grow uneasy and unwilling to use those media systems, and the
market will pressure them to go back to being information-
forcing networks.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Craig for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
to all the witnesses for hanging in there. I know there are an
awful lot of us on Energy and Commerce.
I am new to the committee, and I worked in med tech for
over 20 years. But prior to that I was a journalism major in
college, and I worked as a local newspaper for about--
newspaper--worked for a local newspaper for about 4 years.
You know, when I think about 2 years ago, when I first won
my seat in Congress, my district had somewhere in the
neighborhood of the mid-teens in local newspapers still left.
And as I sit here today, that has dwindled down over and over
the course of the last couple of years. And it has really
accelerated as a result of the pandemic.
Ms. O'Brien, in your testimony you mentioned the type of
journalism done in our local newsrooms. There are watchdogs for
local government, our community school boards, our police
departments. That is the kind of journalism that I participated
in all those years ago. Tell me a little bit more about what
you see as the long-term effects on our democratic institutions
when there are fewer and fewer news rooms doing this kind of
coverage.
Ms. O'Brien. Yes, I think the long-term impacts are exactly
what you would imagine. And what you are pointing out that
happened in your community is seen around the country, right?
There is the number, a lot, and then fewer, and then a handful,
and then it really goes to nothing, and we are in the middle of
all of a news desert, essentially.
And, of course, if you lose the watchdog that is actually
sitting there and going to the board of ed meetings, and going
to listen to what is happening at City Hall, and really taking
notes, and following what is happening in the local community
so that people in the community, regardless of where they sit,
on what side of the aisle, people in the community can be
educated and informed and know what is happening.
And also we have seen, as I mentioned in my written
testimony, there is a link to keeping costs down when there is
someone who is watching all the costs, and how things are being
spent. It is hugely problematic. It is a terrible disservice to
the community members, and you end up with a populace that is
less educated and less informed.
At the same time, when people talk about free speech,
though, I have to say I don't think there is this free speech
requirement that you get to be on ``Morning Joe,'' you know,
and if you are not ``Morning Joe,'' then somehow your free
speech is being taken away from you. So I want to be clear
that, while local news is in decline, where cable has tried to
fill the gaps I don't think they do so very successfully,
frankly.
Ms. Craig. Can I follow up with this question around media
consolidation? You know, that has brought changes to the kind
of reporting that is done in local newsrooms. You have seen a
number of hedge funds start to buy up our newspapers across the
country. How does it--how does the oversight work dwindle as
consolidation starts to occur?
Ms. O'Brien. That is a great question. I could not possibly
answer it for you, because I am not an expert in that.
Ms. Craig. Well, good answer. Local news organizations like
the Hastings Gazette, which, you know, just closed--I want to
go back, though, to just any of our witnesses today who--and
talk a little bit about--we have sort of hammered the idea of
what is the Federal Government's responsibility to death here
this afternoon, but--and the First Amendment.
But say a little bit about what you believe the role of
ethics in journalism is. Because I know, when I went to school,
you know, it was hammered, objective reporting. It was hammered
inside each one of us. Where do you think ethics in journalism
needs to go at this point?
It is too common to see just articles and broadcasts that
just don't have that level of objectivity. I know a lot of
reporters, a lot of journalists who really do still strive for
that, but we have lost our way a little bit on some of these
broadcast channels.
Ms. O'Brien. I think, if there is one takeaway from this
conversation today, it should be that, regardless of where you
sit politically, that everyone should want to embrace facts,
and people should not put people who are intentionally
misleading the public, who are spewing lies and misinformation,
on TV. That is the takeaway.
And I think, where ethics comes into play there, right, is
that newsrooms and news organizations have to do better
themselves. There is no role for Congress in monitoring that
and regulating that. Absolutely not. But news organizations can
do that. They can do better, and serve their public better.
That is why you got into the business those years ago, I got
into the business all those years ago, and why most journalists
do the work that they do.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time
back to you.
Mr. Doyle. I want to thank Ms. Craig.
You are setting a good example for the more senior members
of this committee.
Let's see, I don't see a Republican on camera, so Peter
Welch, I am going to recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I want to go back and follow up on
what Mr. Johnson was asking in--and ask Professor Turley would
you--first of all, I am totally for the free--for the First
Amendment, so I just want that to be clear. We can't really
regulate it.
But Professor Turley, you said that you hoped the market
would correct some of these extreme problems. And I believe the
market created these extreme problems. And, you know, if you
are a Newsmax or you are an MSNBC--I mean, pick your choice--
right now you develop a market plan, you disseminate a point of
view that appeals to the demographic, and then you get
advertisers to support it, and it is reinforcing.
So I just want you to--I want to ask you whether, in fact,
the market is a source of this dynamic that we are all
experiencing.
Mr. Turley. Now, that is a fantastic question, and I agree
with it. The market pressures, as we talked about earlier, did
produce this echo chamber approach. We are not unique in that.
You know, I just spoke to journalism students in Buenos Aires--
--
Mr. Welch. OK, because--I am going to interrupt you,
because I just want to keep going here. But I thank you for
that.
Professor Bell, I want to ask you a couple of things. Local
news is under immense pressure because the economic model to
sustain them doesn't work. Yet local news is more needed than
ever. In Vermont it is our local papers that are giving the
day-to-day what is going on with COVID. We had a big storm, it
was our local broadcasting, it was our local print that was
really essential. But they don't have the revenue. They are
needed more than ever, and they have no revenue model.
Yet news aggregators, including like Facebook, take what is
published locally, which tends to be more trusted, and
disseminate it but don't pay for the utilization. And, as we
are seeing, that issue is being faced, I think right now, in
Australia. Does it make sense to consider requiring some of
those other platforms that use the locally produced content to
pay for it?
Ms. Bell. I think that you need to consider all of these
options. We will see how it plays out in Australia. Personally,
I think tying the future of local news or national news to the
patronage system of large technology companies is in itself
fraught with certain problems.
Mr. Welch. Tell me what we can do.
Ms. Bell. Well----
Mr. Welch. We need local news. Local news is----
Ms. Bell. Right.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Trusted----
Ms. Bell. Perhaps a better idea is a version of the
Australian tax, which is to all--the Australian Bargaining
Code, which is that--hypothecate tax. You know, hypothecate
tax----
Mr. Welch. We ought to look at that.
Ms. Bell. Yes, I think----
Mr. Welch. My view is--the question for us in Congress is
to see local news as a public good.
Ms. Bell. Right.
Mr. Welch. Something that helps democracy.
Ms. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Welch. It may require some support.
The next question I have is what is the responsibility of
any news organization when--in the halcyon days of Walter
Cronkite, that news organization, even though it was in CBS,
had significant independence on its editorial judgment. But if
they published something that was a violation, was libelous,
they were subject to litigation. And the question now is
whether the protection in section 230 means that there is no
accountability for the disseminators of information, because
they are not ``publishers.''
Professor Turley, is that something that has to be looked
at?
Mr. Turley. I think it does. I don't see how you can
maintain the original model of the internet. I call myself an
internet originalist, because originally these companies
promised they would be content neutral, and therefore Congress
gave them that protection. They are clearly not content neutral
anymore. And so you have to reexamine whether they should be
entitled to that immunity.
I really am saddened by the loss of content neutrality. I
would like to keep 230 and go back to content neutrality.
Mr. Welch. OK. I will just take my last couple of seconds
to thank Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Urquiza. I hope I pronounced that.
But you both spoke--you spoke, Ms. O'Brien, of some norms
and values that have to be incorporated, they can't be--they
have to be accepted.
And also, Ms. Urquiza, I think what you talked about with
your dad is the power of media. It is still an authoritative
voice for so many. And, you know, we should live in a world
where we can trust what people are saying. So thank you for
your advocacy in the memory of your father.
I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you. The
Congressman yields back.
We have Buddy, Buddy Carter, your 5 minutes. You have the
floor.
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardenas. Unmute, Buddy.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cardenas. OK.
Mr. Carter. I apologize, I was on mute. Thank every one of
you on the panel for being here. I appreciate it. I--and, you
know, I am having some trouble here understanding exactly where
we are going with this.
This is so important to me. I think this is one of the most
important subject matters that we need to be discussing now in
our country, not just in Congress but in our country, and that
is, you know, just disinformation, and how it has spread
through the media. It is of extreme concern to me. I think of,
you know, the examples like you can't pick up a left-wing
publication or a left-leaning, if you will, publication without
it saying unfounded claims by the President, by President
Trump, of election fraud. I mean, it says that.
Yet I am from the State of Georgia, and I think back to
2018, and I think back to the gubernatorial race that we had in
2018, and I think back to, specifically, on a November 11,
2018, segment with Joy Reid, where she expressed allegations
that the election had somehow been manipulated to ensure Stacey
Abrams wouldn't--or would lose. And yet, you know, when you
hear about that, you never hear about unfounded claims that
there was voter suppression during that time. I think the left-
leaning media accepts the fact that that was not a fair
election. Yet in the State of Georgia we understand it was a
fair election.
Another example: November 15th of 2018, CNN's ``Inside
Politics'' alluded to allegations of concerns with the
electoral outcome in the gubernatorial race. Yet that panel
didn't push back on fraud allegations at all.
Mr. Turley, to me these are clear examples of double
standards within the effort to address disinformation. And it
is very clear that this issue isn't--it isn't just limited to a
single party, a single ideology, or anything. Have there been
any repercussions, Mr. Turley, or actions taken by these
networks, CNN and MSNBC, to your knowledge, to address the
spread of misinformation?
Mr. Turley. No. As I said in my testimony, I personally
called out networks on false legal stories. Chuck Todd said
something about a Michigan case against the Governor, ruling
against the Governor, that was manifestly untrue. That was not
correct. I have seen commentators make arguments about [audio
malfunction].
They were rejected not just by the Supreme Court, but
unanimously by the Supreme Court.
So the problem is that everyone is very select in their
rage. The important thing is they are rageful, they are
addicted to this rage, but they are very selective. And once
you go down this path of saying that we are going to try to
take some people off the air or get these companies to bar
opposing voices, you find yourself on this slippery slope. And
there may come a day where you are on the wrong side of that
censorship.
Mr. Carter. You know, before I became a Member of
Congress--and even still, I am a pharmacist by trade and by
profession, and I was a nursing home consultant pharmacist. And
that is why what happened in New York I find so appalling and
so upsetting and so disturbing. Yet we know that CNN had a ban
on Chris Cuomo covering his brother, the Governor of New York,
for over 7 years. Yet they lifted that ban. And, during the
months of March and June, Chris Cuomo had his brother on the
show nine times, nine times to discuss the COVID response--and
also, I am sure, to boost ratings. I am sure he wouldn't have
had him on to hurt ratings. I am sure he had him on to help
ratings.
And yet now we find that the Governor of New York was
lying--not spreading misinformation--he was lying, covering up
about deaths in nursing homes. And yes, that is offensive to
me, because I worked in nursing homes for so long, and I know
what impact--and I knew whenever he made that executive order
to send COVID-infected patients into nursing homes, what impact
it was going to have.
What--Mr. Turley, I want to just ask you: What can we do to
prevent situations like this from happening?
Mr. Turley. Well, this is one area where I may disagree
with Ms. O'Brien in the sense that, even if the Governor is
giving false information, I would still want him interviewed. I
mean, that is part of the point. If we believe that somebody is
wrong, it is better to have the interview. It is better to
force that into the open, and let people make their own
decisions.
And in Cuomo's case, it would be great to interview him,
even if he is repeating things people think is false. But it is
the diversity of our media that allows these to be brought to
the surface. If you start to direct your cable companies to get
rid of those networks you don't believe or listen to, then you
will have fewer of these stories called out.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Carter. OK, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you for yielding back. Next we have
Congresswoman Fletcher.
You have the floor for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Mr. Cardenas. I am glad
to be here for this important hearing today. And I want to
thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to testify. I
appreciate the time you spent with us today.
And to Ms. Urquiza, the photo that you shared of what I
assume was your Facetime with your father on your written
testimony, it is just--it is heartbreaking. And I just want to
thank you for sharing your pain with us in the hope that we
will use it to make progress. And that is the purpose of
today's hearing.
I have heard some comments from some of my colleagues today
and claims that this is an effort to silence people with whom
some Members simply disagree. I don't think that is why we are
here.
We have a problem with the proliferation of disinformation
and extremism in this country. That is what we are here to
discuss today. And that is something we have seen right here in
this Capitol in this year. That is something that should
concern everyone here, and every American.
We have covered a lot of ground today, and I join my
colleagues in recognizing the importance of local news
reporting. And I want to ask a couple of questions about that.
But in my home in Houston, for the last week our local
reporters have been sharing information on true matters of life
and death, like where to get drinkable water. It does a great
service, especially when so many of the reporters that I talked
to didn't have power or water themselves.
So, Ms. O'Brien, the question that I wanted to start with
is one to you about, you know, my understanding, with both a
sister and a dad who have been journalists in their careers,
that journalists are held to certain ethical standards in
reporting that includes, among other things, verifying facts
from multiple sources before news is considered fit to print,
or air, or publish. And can you walk us through some of what
those standards are, and the process for traditional
journalists in reporting a story?
And maybe that is something we should be thinking about as
we consider this conversation about disinformation. That would
be helpful.
Ms. O'Brien. I would be happy to. And I can only give you,
from my point of view and from the work that I have done. I
wouldn't presume to speak for other journalists.
But you are absolutely right, and I am sure those
journalists in your hometown are doing the best that they can
under very dire circumstances. And there is a tremendous
pressure to get as much information out as fast as possible,
which is going to mean some stuff is wrong. And so that--those
standards shift sometimes in breaking news. In covering
Hurricane Katrina, for example, we worked with a lot of local
reporters, tremendous pressure. Many of them were homeless
themselves.
But generally speaking, right, you are supposed to stick to
all the basic tenets of basic journalism, do reportage. And
then, if you are going to use sources, you have to get multiple
verified sources. And then, probably most importantly, you have
to bring that back either to your editor or your executive
producer, if you are working in television, and talk to them
about these sources. If they are unnamed, here is who they are.
Because your editor or your executive producer actually needs
to know that they are independent, and that they are verified,
and that they don't have a stake in the way the story is being
told. I am not a big fan of using quotes from people that are
not attributed, because I think it is often overdone, and I
think it becomes very problematic.
So--and I think, really, most of the reporters I have ever
worked with in local news--I was a local reporter in San
Francisco, I worked as a producer in Boston--or in network
news, or in cable news, they are all doing the best that they
can, given the pressures that they are under. What I would like
to see are people who come back and say, ``Where did we get
that wrong?''
In Hurricane Katrina we made mistakes, and we came back and
said, ``You know what? Here are some of the things we got
wrong,'' and what were those systems that allowed us to get it
wrong, so that next time we don't make the same mistakes, we
get it right? And I think Congress does not have a role in
figuring that out. But the news organizations should want to be
better, because I think that that is going to make audiences
trust them more.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. O'Brien. And I want to follow
up on your last comment with Professor Bell about the role of
government here, because I think both Ms. O'Brien and you have
referenced earlier today the sort of positive versus negative
role of the government around this question. And so much of the
conversation has been focused around--framed in the context of
the First Amendment concerns.
But what positive things do you think Congress can and
should do when facing this disinformation right now? What are
some positive things you think we should be doing?
Ms. Bell. Well, I think they should be--I think Congress
can help, first of all, create incentives for new ownership
structures in local news markets. I think that you can review
whether or not you want to rethink what public broadcasting is
in the digital age, and how to keep that independent and
robust.
I think that you can really sort of work with civil society
organizations to think about what the best mitigating
strategies are. And I think you can apply some pressure,
hopefully, to the platform companies to allow much greater
auditing of some of the data about the stories that circulate,
and access to that. Just don't let them know so much about
public--you know, what our public life is without us really
having any insight into it.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Professor Bell. I have exceeded
my time, so I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Cardenas.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back. Ms. Clarke, you
were having issues with your camera. Are you there?
[No response.]
Mr. Cardenas. OK. I don't hear anything, so we will go to
Mrs. Dingell, who has the floor for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
the witnesses. And the good thing about seeing me means you are
almost at the end.
But having said that--and I know that many people have made
this comment, but media remains a crucial tool, particularly
during this pandemic, to access to vital information. And while
they provide critical services, our increased isolation and
consumption of media has given rise to this surge of
disinformation that we have been talking about all afternoon.
News sources have amplified debunked or false claims, elevated
conspiracy theories, and preyed on the divisions in this
country. And I am truthfully just very worried about what has
happened to the fear and hatred that is dividing this country.
Misinformation and deliberate disinformation have
consequences, and we have lived through those consequences. We
experienced it firsthand here at the Capitol on January 6. We
saw it over the last year in various denials of the seriousness
of COVID-19. And we talked--I am so sorry for the loss of any
family member. I do understand. I too have lost family because
of COVID. Or even--how did wearing a mask become so political?
This issue has serious implications for the security of our
communities and, quite frankly, the preservation of our
democracy. And it is happening on both sides. It is not
Democrats, Republicans. It is happening in America to
everybody.
So, as highlighted during today's hearing, media outlets
are incentivized to report provocative, reactionary stories. My
concern lies in that sensational content or media intended to
elicit an emotional or, quite frankly, a violent reaction--I
have had people try to do things--I am a Michigan girl. We know
about people that do that. It not only continues to divide us,
but it is desensitizing people that--it continues to--the
continued exposure normalizes hateful rhetoric. It normalizes
calls for violence. It legitimizes these conspiracy theories
and incentivizes companies to do it more.
Ms. Bell, should the American people be concerned that
continued exposure to more provocative reactionary content
normalizes these ideas and events and could lead to the
acceptance, normalization, and even support of more extreme
content?
Ms. Bell. Yes, I think they should. And we see how
algorithms--recommendation algorithms that work, particularly
on search engines and social media, can actually lead to people
being shown more of--reinforcing content which, when it is
political speech, can be moving into more extreme and
eventually kind of violent areas.
So social media companies have been addressing that. And I
think that this is where norms and social practices are really
important, that we recognize that there is a problem. There has
to be will among the political--the media elite and the
technology elite to actually kind of do the right thing, as it
were. So, you know, it is--but it is a real danger. You know,
we have seen there is a real danger.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Ms. O'Brien, should the American people similarly be
concerned that an increased acceptance of this content will
incentivize news outlets to provide more of this type of
content?
Ms. O'Brien. There is a reason that the phrase ``If it
bleeds, it leads'' is a phrase that everybody who has ever
worked in local news can roll up. And, as a person who has
spent a lot of time in local news, you kind of know what is
going to be your top story, right?
And also, by the way, it is inexpensive to cover. It is
easy to shoot. It is very fast, right? So there is a financial
element that makes the pressure more to cover news that is
over-the-top, violent rhetoric.
And also, it engages people, right? I mean, part of, I
think, the debate, when it becomes very visceral and very
emotional, it is good--you know, what we would call good TV. It
is good drama. It drags people in. It makes them feel a certain
way. The worst thing that could happen is that someone is
watching and feels absolutely nothing about what you are
putting on the air. As a producer, that would be extremely
problematic.
So, yes, obviously, I think the point about this idea of we
have to figure out how to get people to do their best, you
know, and sort of appeal to all the better angels who could
potentially be involved in a solution is a very, very good
point by Professor Bell. And I think the public should be
concerned. I don't think that any of this is a surprise.
Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time. I had a lot more. Thank
you.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back. At this moment
in time I do not see any other Members on the screen who
haven't spoken yet, Republican or Democrat. If somebody is to
speak who hasn't spoken, the Members--OK, seeing and hearing
none, we will commence the closing of this committee hearing.
And I will start by thanking our witnesses, and thank you
so much for being here today and giving us your information and
offering to be part of this hearing. We really appreciate your
participation.
And also I remind the Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared. I also ask that the witnesses please respond as
promptly as possible to any questions or inquiries asking more
information of you.
Also, a housekeeping matter: We do, in fact, insert all the
letters of testimony that have been--or would be part of this
hearing. And also we are, in fact, accepting the request to
have documents and letters submitted for the--that have been
requested to submit for the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One set of letters has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210224/111229/
HHRG-117-IF16-20210224-SD002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with that, at this time, the committee is adjourned.
Thank you all very, very much to come together on this so
important issue.
And also, a point of personal privilege. Before everybody
got on, I saw a beautiful comment back and forth in catching up
between Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Turley. You wouldn't think so, if
you just assumed that they don't get along or appreciate and
respect each other. But it was really beautiful----
Ms. O'Brien. Turley has been a guest on my shows many
times.
Mr. Turley. That is true. That is very true. Thank you.
Ms. O'Brien. Thank you, we appreciate it----
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you all very, very much.
Mr. Doyle [presiding]. Tony, I just want to also thank all
the witnesses. We have run back and forth for votes, but we
appreciate all of the witnesses appearing today. And I--you
have been a great benefit to the committee. And we thank you,
and hope to see you again soon.
So stay safe, everyone.
Ms. O'Brien. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]