♪ >> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." hari: good evening. i'm from the pbs news hour, filling in for charlie rose, who innovatively. -- who is away this week. we begin this evening with the latest development in the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail use. in an announcement, james comey recommended no charges be filed against hillary clinton. he did describe clinton's e-mail practices as "extremely careless." -- directornie

james comey: there is evidence that any reasonable person in her position or any position of those with him she was corresponding should have known an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding potentially classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. hari: joining me now is glenn thrush of politico. what is the most important take away we should remember from the presser this afternoon? guest: hillary clinton is not being led away from her mansion in handcuffs. there will be no criminal indictment. essentially, what he said was, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case against her. but there was the potential for either a security think should which if she were in the state , department might involve her security clearance being reevaluated, or some sort of internal administrative sanction. then you set up a protocol of procedures that she should have

followed. of course, clinton over the past several months has already said she was sorry for this, and plant to deal with those in that manner anyway. hari: how important is the almost tongue lashing given in this? said there are not any charges filed, extremely careless is a quote i expect the trunk campaign to be making ads with right now. glenn: careless hillary is better than crooked hillary. let's put this in proportion. s comments sting, we have known for months hillary clinton should not have done this. we've known she was acting contrary to the rules of her own agency. the detrimental information has been out there. the real danger posed was the criminal part of this. i recall when the story was was first broken by the new york times in march, the clinton

campaign, so much as it existed in march 2015, pushed act on the notion that it was a criminal investigation. this was in fact a criminal investigation. what occurred today, barring something unforeseen, there will not be a criminal prosecution. that is a big deal. james comey's tongue lashing, while it will find its way into ads, pales in comparison to the weapons clinton may have given the republicans have this become -- had this actually become a criminal matter. attorney general loretta lynch said she would hear the recommendations of the f ei -- fbi. will she stick with it? glenn: that's what we are hearing. it would be very unusual, perhaps unprecedented, for an attorney general to move beyond beyond -- beyond what in fbi director of suggested. interestingery political subplot, when loretta

lynch met with bill clinton on the tarmac. that has thrown a additional element of political uncertainty into this. there was a story revealing the clinton people would consider reappointing lynch if clinton was elected. there's a lot of waters to be muddied here. the way i described this is it is a mixed glee bad for her trunk. on one hand, the republicans definitely would have preferred obviously to be running against somebody under criminal indictment. but in the absence of an indictment, clinton has still been very much damaged by this. there's a huge opportunity cost for the last 16 months of her having this hang over her head. thirds of americans, democrats and republicans, in the last poll i saw last week, don't trust hillary clinton. she has paid a political price and will continue to. hari: what has the republican response been today?

glenn: that's really interesting. donald trump put out his statement. there's a certain sense of tranquility about his pronouncements. he has been very message discipline today, talking about the rig to system, putting clinton in an establishment figure who has the system rigged. he has been relatively circumspect, as have other republicans. paul ryan, a speaker of the house, a member of the establishment, while he respects the process of the fbi and the results of the investigation, he doesn't understand how they could have possibly come to this. that is the fine line they are walking. thrush of political, thank you for joining us. guest: great seeing you. ♪

hari: the rise of the so-called sharing economy is reorganizing how we live our lives. it is changing how we do business. industry leaders have thrived alongside advances in technology that empower individuals to share and turn a profit. this new paradigm of commerce has widespread implications for the future of work and even economic growth. joining me now is arun sundararajan. thes a professor at nyu and author of a book about the

sharing economy. of common,'s ceo providing flexible community minded shared homes. rana fohoohar, i'm pleased to have them all at this table. first, let's get the bigger picture definition. how do you define it? it is not really sharing, if i'm charging you a fee for using something i own. guest: absolutely. we are traveling back to some version of the 18th century economy where individuals would provide goods and services to other individuals. we sort of rejected that model in favor of building organizations and increasing complexity. some of those organizations are remaining and facilitating a crowd-based form of exchange where rather than accumulating

the resources centrally, an organization will draw them from the crowd if and when they need them. hari: crowd-based capitalism. arun: i call it crowd-based capitalism. except my book title. i chose the shadow economy. it sort of more broadly maximizes the number of people who know what i'm talking about. .ari: brad, you run common it is a code living space. living space.a co- it is not the type of apartment most people are used to. is there something generational happening where people are open to the idea of sharing something as fundamental as the space they inhabit? brad: i don't think you can talk about the sharing economy without mentioning access over ownership. there is a micro -- macro trend happening specifically concentrated around younger people, where things such as houses and cars, and even clothing that they would

previously purchase and own, they are now accessing on-demand in a flexible way that they say -- see is a better overall experiments. hari: is there evidence of this happening on a large scale, not just specific to new york city or san francisco where lots of these sharing economies can jump in? rana: absolutely. if you look at co-ops, companies owned by the individuals, this has been a big model and -- in agriculture, for example. it is becoming more common because of platform technologies across the economy. this is really crucial. as i talk about in my book, one of the reasons we've had this wealth gap and distortion and our economy and slower growth is it has been dominated by complex institutions, namely financial, creating a bifurcated economy where workers have only gotten a 2% wage hike since the financial crisis. very flat wages. that doesn't work in an economy

that is 70% consumer spending. these technologies will be very very important in terms of helping labor capture a bigger share of the pie. which to me is crucial to the growing economy as a whole. aran: absolutely. -- arun: absolutely. i think a big shift we are seeing, a company in crowd-based capitalism is a shift in the role of the individual. from 100 years, individuals have been the provider of labor. creating a wide friday of models of engagement, that allows the -- variety of models of engagement, that allows the individuals to ascend past that labor provider role. and take on some form of ownership. it may not look like complete driverip when an uber has less ownership than airbnb hosts, but it is a fundamental shift in the role.

the trouble is we built all the safety net like things on the stability, all of the benefits. the funding model is wrapped around a full-time employment world. we are at the early stages of starting to reinvent how we fund the things people really want. make a living. rana: that is why a portable benefits are so crucial in the debate right now. unless you have those nets, this model doesn't work. portable benefits. how would it work on a global scale? if i rented out my apartment, if i perform some task for task revenue, how do i accrue long-term benefits? rana: if you step back for a minute, you think about that. on the high end, it is a portfolio career. at the lower end, the gig economy. it is basically people taking on many different jobs. many of us are working at that already. i have three different jobs. many people around the table probably have other jobs.

what makes that stable socially is if you have health care that you can take with you as a freelancer, or from one part-time position to another. people are talking now in washington about portable benefits. mark warner talked about this. elizabeth warren is big into this. it is a sort of tweak the public sector could make to unleash economic growth that could be had, in turn the sharing economy into a positive, instead of something that we think about, we are all going to be uber-ized and outsourced, and end up losers in the economy. arun: we talk about the challenges that platforms like uber and lyft have faced in what should their workers be categorized as. but if you delve down to the bottom of it, you realize providers in the sharing economy don't necessarily want to be full-time. they don't want the work structure.

they want the good stuff that goes with full-time. they want the income stability. they want paid vacations, they want the benefits, they want the insurance. they want workplace protections. it is time for us to sort of think about how we are going to create that infrastructure of protection around the new model of engagement, which is fundamentally empowering. brad: in many cases, the companies want to provide them. things such as training, performance-based bonuses. actually limited from doing that, because they don't want the employee classified as full-time. they still want to keep them as independent contractors. when it goes to show is there is a gap between the independent contractor and the full-time employee where there is a lot of people existing in limbo. rana: by the way, this brings up another issue, we will probably have to rethink the entire area of labor law. the way in which the relationship between companies and employees is set up in a decades-old system that doesn't work for the new economy. it will require legislative tweaking.

hari: does this change where the wealth pools? right now, look at airbnb or uber. these are companies with an enormous valuations. technically, it is still the first founding group, may be investor group that profited. when you talk to the uber driver, there are not shares in the country -- company. arun: i think of course we have created a bunch of new tech billionaires. for every tech billionaire we created in airbnb, we also created close to a nelly and -- a million micro-entrepreneurs supplementing their income or keeping their home or paying their mortgage by running what does resemble a genuine small business. they set prices. they do merchandising. they build a brand. they have to manage inventory. i think the airbnb model is a

good sort of template for what sort of positive crowd-based capitalism might look like. issue.s a broader we are stuck in this world where -- got to sort of loose in the boxes around labor categories. we have to do it fast. while companies are starting to see human beings as assets, while we are at that point where the focus might shift away from raising capital to respecting labor, it is a relatively short window. 20 years down the road, automation will be at the point where that capital labor substitution will become easier and more fluid. this is the point where we see the equivalent of the labor unions of the 50's and 60's. the equipment of policy that

could support a company like airbnb, that would be good for providers and is biased towards more favorable labor practices or ownership practices. rana: when i was reading your book, i was in -- interested in whether the sharing economy could be a kind of broader labor movement. a nontraditional movement. usually, when you think of that union you think of manufacturing, working people, lower socioeconomic groupings. the sharing economy goes all the way up the socioeconomic ladder. there could be an opportunity to bring white-collar workers and blue-collar workers together, new strengthimpart to labor, which a lot of economists feel is a waitress -- away to create more sustainable growth. brad: you're seeing a gulf of communities.

peopleormerly current might have gathered in churches. now we are seeing less. you've seen declining union membership. you don't even have a workforce. you don't even have a group of employees to go into the office. common could become the place you live, that could become an important new community structure in the economy. the thousands of micro-entrepreneurs, as an employer in this workspace, what is the correlation between loyalty and flexibility? how do you make sure people were working through your company have some semblance of loyalty toward some shared mission, and say i'm going to carry the flag , for this brand, this is a great company to work for? if everyone can run off to the next project that is the next highest bidder, how do you say to your clients, i can guarantee this really fantastic talented individual that i have recruited can stay on the project for you?

to be innovative about it. you have to think in a totally new way about how you keep workers incentivized. we have made a decision at common to shy away from 1099 contractors. everybody from our cleaners to the managers, they are employees of common. almost all of them have equity in the company as well. i think the sharing of equity is extraordinarily important. you are seeing other companies take even more extreme versions of this. you mentioned in an article the other day, the ridesharing company that is actually owned by the drivers, which i think is an extremely promising development. arun: there is a company called that's , rana: how do they compare to uber? arun: they have a comparable

size now. i think the difference is, you can't install it, you have to be invited by a driver. the driver seemed a lot happier. rana: i bet. is still early days, but it remains to be seen. in 2012, uber drivers were happy as well. [laughter] more importantly, you can call a number. there is an office in one world trade center. there's sort of a feeling of respect that the drivers seem to be reacting very positively to. this is in some ways a tried and tested competitive strategy. uber's identified weakness is its relationship with its drivers. they can target on that dimension. rana: a us to the point about human capital. companies are now competing for drivers. arun: that will sort of even out

the bargaining position between the providers, the individuals and institution overtime. but it may not be enough. brad: you have to move quickly. is clearly betting that in 5-10 years they will have a fleet of driverless vehicles. if you look at driverless technology, it is clearly against removing the driver from the equation. they know that is their weakness. uber has said there will not be any drivers. hari: what role does the state play? when you are about to take over a building and you have to go by building codes, what framework should there be? bare minimum? where is the line where it becomes an infringement on your ability to inundate? brad: when we think about

regulations, first and foremost, we look at the purpose of those regulations. why were they conceived? in 99% of cases, they were conceived in the right spirit, in the right manner, and they are an incredibly important part of the ecosystem. it's important to understand why those regulations exist. the thing that i actually focus much more on, i think sometimes entrepreneurs had a tendency to be overly focused on specific regulations -- is more of the user interface of government. is it easy to get someone on the phone? how long does it take when you are applying for a permit to get a yes or no answer? i actually believe there's too much emphasis on the regulations -- themselves, and there needs to be -- building codes exist for good reasons, to protect people. to make sure people are safe and things are done in the best

possible way. it is much more about the user interface and the process that holds entrepreneurs back. arun: i will go a step further actually, and say that as we sort of transition into this new world of capitalism, the role of government is going to change in a way that makes it much more of a rule setter. a lot of the execution of the regulations themselves, and maybe even inventions of new regulations, is going to happen naturally through other stakeholders in society, the platforms. common scales, there will be a host of new regulatory issues that come up. we wouldn't have known that iving did not co-l exist in scale. the wrong response is for the down andt to clamp follow the -- say follow the rules, and we will enforce them. the right approach is to treat

the platform as a partner, to the role you are going to be playing in the future society isn't just as a marketplace. it is more than that. it is someone who has better information about where the market is failing. so you believe platforms such as airbnb should be regulated as public utilities? arun: we should stop thinking of them as the entity to be regulated. there are not only their protagonist, they are a partner. stop thinking of them as -- a are a part of the regulatory ecosystem. they have better information. we have all this new opportunity. you have this really detailed and this great sort of history of interaction between two individuals. discrimination, for things like safety, all of those, there's a new host of opportunities for new regulatory models that starts to come up. we have to bring the platforms

into the regulatory fold rather -- as partners rather than thinking of them as people who are breaking the rules. rana: i think the role of government ultimately will be making sure the sharing economy does not become a zero-sum game. hi c2 diametric futures. one where you have the uber model. the actual workers is not getting a huge share of the value. the wealth is in a small number of people's hands. you have a different model in more of a capitalism 2.0. most mainstream economist with -- would say that is the path to more sustainable growth. particularly as we are going into a period, where returns are going to be lower. if we can get growth more broadly shared amongst labor, we will see faster economic growth over all. right now, it seems like we have displaced most of the risk down to the individual level.

at the driver level, they buy the cars, they pay for gas come and everything else. they are not computing that into the cost of everything else. whereas the companies, they just get the drivers and the customers, and see the profits. rana: absolutely. this brings up an issue in my book that i raise, whether or not the technology sector will follow in the footsteps of the financial sector. we had 40 years where finance created 40% of jobs that takes 25% of profits. we have a lot of tech companies that are following the same paradigm. huge market cap at fewer number -- but fewer and fewer number of jobs being created. a lot of value held up here. that is not a model for sustainable growth. that's tons of research shows inequality actually leads to more volatile growth and boom bust cycles. arun: and like a lot of broader unhappiness in society. rana: exactly. arun: i think part of the challenge it -- actually, part of the opportunity for the

sharing economy is i feel that we actually have a way of shifting away from that concentration of a tremendous amount of wealth into the hands of the few. if you look at the beneficiaries of the growth of facebook, or the growth of google or microsoft, it tended to be people who have skills associated with the new technology. mainstreamt a economist will call skill bias. with the sharing economy platforms you are touching people across the spectrum. there is a bunch of different people, whether they are making things, whether they want to host our drive, who can share in the growth that comes from technological progress. the challenge here now is going to be this -- to sort of put in place policies that makes sure this collective of providers can get enough bargaining power to reduce the inherent imbalance between the individual and the institutions. hari: once that happens we will

have you back at this table. the book is called makers and takers, the rise of finance and the fall of american business. thank you for joining us. ♪

hari: facebooks connect over a million people each day around the world. it has also become increasingly influential about how we stay informed about the world. the research study found that 44% of adults in the united states regularly read news content on the site. leslie facebook announced plans to make changes to its new algorhythm to favorably promote content by the friends and family of users. joining me now is john herrman, jay rosen, and melissa bell. i am pleased to have them all. how significant has the impact of facebook on journalism been? one per on the consumers and also on the storytellers. let's start with the consumers. john: it is hard to overstate in the last five years especially, a huge number of people have

while using facebook, and treating it as a primary news source. some is intentional, some is just happening. there's more to read, there are more organizations vying for your attention. the result has been that over 100 million people in america alone are actively checking a single news source composed of many other news sources. but that is arguably the largest single outlet in the country and the world, and it is facebook's. hari: isn't that a good thing? more people getting information from perhaps friends saying read this article? jay: there are advantages to consuming news through a social layer which facebook makes possible in that you are connected to your friends and

family through the news so it will be more meaningful to you. what is lost with that is editorial judgment and that extra emphasis that journalists once added to the flow of news so that they could say to us, you may not initially think so but this is really important, or this may not be the sort of thing you normally pay attention to and you really should hear it. i think that is one of the things being lost through the news system. we should also add that in many ways this change is being driven by users, by the fact that people love their mobile devices and other mobile devices they want pages to load fast and they want a good user experience. facebook has distinguished itself through that.

we should talk about the choices it makes but we should also keep in mind that the underlying trend is users are making a choice to use their phones in on their phones to use the app facebook. hari: melissa, this is good news for vox. facebook is pretty much a virtual paper boy. a good chunk of your audience comes not to your specific website but through facebook and other social platforms. melissa: we definitely see this platform and other platforms as a great opportunity to connect with audiences. facebook has a huge audience that is hungry and looking for information every day. it is one of many. sometimes we can get a little distracted with facebook as the sole conversation topic. more of us -- it is one of many access points where we can meet people. it is an opportunity in that there is a hungry audience waiting for us there, but we also need to remember there are a lot of different places for us to reach audiences in this day and age. hari: let's unpack the second part, the storytellers.

what is the relationship between facebook and publishing companies? john: i think it has been at times happier and more strained. in the longer story of the media and the internet, facebook is kind of like a conclusion, feels like a conclusion, the companies that made a jump from print to web and dealt with google and search engines in getting readers to other companies like that. facebook is bigger than anything before, kind of more centralized and editorially curated. that is why there is a sense of urgency among publishers. hari: recently they announced the values behind what they see the algorithm is and how the algorithm comes to its

conclusions. that is good because we finally know some inkling of how the black box works. in the other sense, it says i want to give you what you want, not necessarily what i think you want and what i think you need. in your earlier answer it was interesting because you said there is the editorial decision-making process that editors have had. the story in some far-flung place in the world might not seem important but it really is, and that's why we're going to use our precious 22 minutes to do this. facebook does not have to do that. jay: no they do not. what they said in their recent statement, newsfeed, is that friends and family come first and your social graph, your social world's most important for facebook.

and the public world is a distant second. i think this is an important thing that they finally said it that way because prior to that, they had wanted to assure news publishers, it is ok, we love news and what you want you on our platform. making noises about how key news algorhythm.ring a they are being more honest. the most important thing is because users tell us what they really want, is for my daughter's baby pictures to show up first my feed. this is important to understand because this underlines the struggle between the strong and the week. facebook is in charge, they are the goliath.

it is good to know what goliath is about to do because you might get crushed otherwise. the other thing i think is interesting is because facebook is such a data driven company and is so focused on what users want, quote unquote, the wonder is what users want is to be surprised? what if what users want is to know about what they do not know about yet? and that is where i think news publishers have an advantage because that is the desire that they cater to. for engineers, that is a tricky problem. for editors, that is where they come in and that is where they are good at. hari: if there is this black box that is making these decisions, aren't you as a publisher at the mercy of where that black box decides, or at least the engineers and what they program

in? whether or not the stories you are working hard to create ever reach people? melissa: to a certain extent, yes, but i do not think that is what we should be focusing on. what we should be looking at with facebook is that they are a company who is very, very committed to figuring out what their users want and building a product that serves its users. i do not think this is much of a dramatic shift. they're trying to create a platform for people to share information about themselves. which we should be doing is a publishing industry is using that as example for us. we need to create a service for our readers that we can excel at, that we have an advantage it. when i think of ourselves as at the end of the day are storytellers. we have a competitive advantage in that we are able to create and inform people through the value of telling their stories. that is something that facebook does not do. they are a distributor but not the originator of those stories. if you look at most of the major technological advances and major platforms that are out there, they are aggregators of stories. youtube, snapchat, facebook.

these people are building products that aggregate stories but do not tell stories. so, what can we do as journalists to focus on those stories and be the best at that, rather than trying to constantly understand what a black box is doing. we should be aware of it and thoughtful about it, but i would rather us be focusing on being the best at what we can do and provide to readers, and that's where i think we can really be smart about this. jay: it is also really important for vox do have a distinct way of telling stories. brand cannot be just news anymore, that is not good enough. you actually have to have your

own way of giving people your information so that when i see a vox story at my feet, i want that because i know how vox approaches things. that is a big change for news companies too. now they have to increasingly do it their way because it is not packaged in a big bright bow with a newsprint on it. it comes in an atomized form. increasingly that is not enough. hari: john, what you said above on the business side of things, i want to point out that facebook has entered into a relationship with different companies including the times and vox, where they are encouraging publishers to create video for facebook live. when you look at it sometimes you say, wow, they built an entire tv network without paying for a satellite. how important is that relationship and affect the

possible storytelling you might do? john: in one way -- you just articulated -- this is an amazing time to reach a lot of people in new ways and are a lot of challenges we do not intuitively know or know for experienced with the best way to reach people is on facebook or snapchat. these are new platforms and they change a lot. what is the story look like on snapchat on twitter? what does it look like told to a messaging app? the answers often result in millions of new readers or viewers or whatever. the problem is, let's say we figure out facebook live. let's say a reporter figures out a format for telling a story on facebook live or a producer figures out a novel way to do a live event that is like tv but like facebook and somehow new and exciting. that solves a really interesting problem for the publisher, for facebook. it does not tell us in the long-term how media companies will make money doing this, what a media company that specializes in these kinds of things will look like. the big existential questions

are business questions. hari: i do not understand -- if 100,000 people show up to your page and a bunch click on this ad, i get how you make money. if 100,000 people show up on facebook or twitter, how do you make money? melissa: your website has a certain amount of money spent on advertising for that page. podcasts have a different revenue model for advertising. newsletters have a different model. each one is distinct. facebook has their own as well. facebook has been slower to monetize its pages and they are now working with publishers really aggressively to figure out ways to monetize the content they are putting on facebook. in my mind, i think it is a really positive turn because what we are seeing, not just on facebook but from google, twitter, these technology

companies, is that there is value for them as well as for us to have good quality content on their pages. they want to have informative, entertaining, or personal stories told on their platform. they know they cannot just rely on day-to-day users for that, that they also need to turn to publishers as well. in my mind i think this is a great evolution for journalists, to see that there is a tilt towards quality happening. i think we can sometimes get caught up in the fact that it feels like we have been doing this for a long time in the digital age. it has been 20 years publishers have been online. going through google's cycles, but the truth is that is a short amount of time. particularly a medium that has been disrupted by mobile. we have to realize that not only are publishers trying to figure this out, not just the storytelling but also the revenue, technology platforms are as well. we are experimenting in this space right now.

that is why i feel really optimistic about this, i'm excited about it. just as much innovative storytelling is happening. john: they control access to an audience. the publisher publishes these things. they sell audience it has to advertisers, which is something we have taken for granted for so long that we forget the problems inherent in an arrangement like that. but in a situation where a media company like vox is publishing to snapchat, to facebook, then also -- i would argue they are less a publisher than something new. facebook and snapchat on the publisher there. they're providing the means for the story, the video, the reporting to be distributed. what a media company has to do in an environment like that

feels not just like a little different, like an adjustment, but totally different. you're almost like an agency, in the background feeding these different distribution chains that you do not quite have control over. that is like a fundamental change in what we do as a company. i do not think it would square with our previous definitions of a publisher. melissa: you are coming from a newspaper mindset. this is something we have talked about internally a lot, perhaps publishing is the wrong term. we have thought of ourselves as programmers. your programming stories two different platforms. it is not so much -- one of the things that i think is wonderful for vox media that does not have to be thinking about the medium that they were born within. they can be much more agile and adapting to different mediums. before, a place like the new

york times was so tied to the medium it was graded in. i think they're doing a good job but that is a move they have to step away from. you're right, publishing might be wrong term for it. we do think about, how can we program our stories? jay: there are audiences and there are audiences. immediate users just look at who was accessing and that was the audience. now we have to recognize that 50 million people were consuming your content but disconnected from one another may not be as valuable as 5 million people consuming your content who are interconnected with one another, talking, liking, chairing, able sharing, able to produce

their own content back. it is not just how many people you're reaching, reach is one dimension. it is how interconnected are those people to one another, and an interconnected audience is more valuable and if you are the platform through which they connect to one another, that is even more viable. so, that is what we are beginning to understand it now. it's not just how many people you reach, it is how are they configured? if you are the configure or that is the strong position to be in. john: those 5 million people talking about your stories in one place are doing on facebook. so, that is a fantastic thing for facebook. it is exciting to be a part of that and it feels like it is very much yours, but the amount of money you get from that and the amount of control you ultimately have over what happens next is up to them. hari: sour grapes of what used to be gatekeepers. meaning, i got to decide once

upon a time what was the top story. a1, the top story in the newscast tonight. right now, whatever you see when you flip your phone open into open any number of these platform apps, i do not have this power anymore. but even if you do see my work, you might see a story published 15 days ago and it was in c3. jay: long ago, the journalism profession in the united states took for granted its power as a gatekeeper and confused it with another fact, which was a very limited channel immediate universe that happened to prevail at that time, which was just an historical era which ran for a long time, almost 100 years. it is over now. people who confused the limited channel immediate universe with their own authority and brilliance as journalists, are having a hard time. the lost gatekeeper syndrome occurs over and over for that group of people. but i teach young journalists and the kind of people who go to work for melissa's company, they do not have that. they did not grow up in a world.

-- in that world. they do not necessarily have an attitude of entitlement about their gatekeeping power or their audience and they are much more willing to go out and seek users for what they do. i think that is really healthy. but for the people who thought they had cultural authority and they now see it taken by these tech companies, there is something deeply offensive to them about this. john: i think this is where you sort of meld critiques of facebook with changes of business a little bit. there are certainly critics who are nostalgic for a time when maybe they personally had more say over what people saw or thought. but that's sort of -- that runs in parallel to a very clear

business problem for any sort of media company that made its money from distribution. which virtually all newspapers and magazines did. which most of the media as we know it does, to some degree. but taking that away is not just about nostalgia or feeling like here are some young, arrogant tech companies that are taking things over. it is like, this is the destruction of one version of advertising in for video, for writing. this is one industry kind of just eating another one. so, we will just have to note that when we talk about who is right and wrong in these critiques and who is appealing to the good old days that were never that great. i resist that a little bit because it leads us to sort of dismiss the source of all the anxiety, which is just

collapsing businesses everywhere. and in the period before what people know comes next, that is apocalyptic. a few years later things are to come together. vox has its portfolio of companies -- a portfolio of publications that in internet years are not brand-new, they are pretty well-established. people know what the verge is, what vox.com is, you can do very deliberate, good work on those sites. through facebook, through snapchat, through the sites themselves, vox is able to put together some version of a new type of media company. but, i do not think you would comfortable turning to another publisher and saying, here is the roadmap. no one knows yet, that is why everyone is so tense all the time. melissa: i agree there is a stressor behind the revenue model.

i think if we are talking specifically about the journalism model, i want to posit that we have a slightly different problem from the gatekeeper issue. i think that is something that also is a little bit of a smoke and mirrors for the real problem. the real problem is we are inundating people with information at such a huge rate that we are not providing clarity anymore. i think this goes back to the original idea to have a limited means of publications distribution so we could present a number of stories, people could follow the stories and they were well informed. that has shifted to the internet and television and 24 hour news channels. even the facebook update mentioned this.

facebook never imagined a news feed so overrun with information that they were trying to provide some ways to help people be guided through the information. i think that this release is something we have yet to fall for. we think about that a lot at vox media, vox.com was built on the premise that we want to provide explanation to readers behind the news. but it is a challenge. it is a challenge and we set up technology, anyway we set up websites with reverse chronology feeds, it is a challenge to me when we set up television. the concern is my journalism heart more than whether we have the right gatekeepers in place or not. hari: there was a recent hubbub with gizmodo where human editors for facebook -- were concerned

or putting their own bias into the placing of stories in the trending topics section when he opened the facebook page. they said we do not allow for any sort of suppression. if 44% of americans are reading this and i think 170 million americans spend 50 minutes a day on facebook or whatsapp, do we have a tendency to walk back into those filter bubbles, things we like and seek information? you just press this button and see how someone who would be far more progressive than you would see the world or someone more conservative with you the world. are you concerned that over time that as these different social media reflect what we like, that we might not hear that thing that was so important to an editor -- serendipitous, you might like this other thing? jay: sometimes i think filter bubbles are talking to one another. but raises a really important issue to meet which is if people are going to be informed citizens in the world we are in now, if we want to have a public engaged with the news, it is probably going to be because those people intentionally chose

it as opposed to it flowing to them through the structure of the media world they were in. that to me is the big question -- do americans actually want to elect to be informed? hari: thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> thank you.

you're watching "bloomberg west." bob corker has taken him out of consideration to be donald rump's vice presidential running mate. that deprives the establishment who would haveve ticket.perience to the and iowa senator ernst also appears to be dropping out of contention. the conservative star says she'll still help jump, just from the senate. meantime hillary clinton is expanding her college cost plans. proposing to eliminate public tin state tuition for students whose families make