we have more information being sent up to the cloud. we think at the end of the day that's great for a network business like ours. we do entertainment because it drives bids on a network of not messaging system because we think we are great at entertainment. >> do you think will continue to see the rise of traffic going in both ways or is there a limit? >> i think we will continue to see the increase in traffic. if you look at the growth rates of upstream traffic, they are far outstripping the rates of downstream traffic it gets on a smaller base. just dust networks are becoming more effective, more capable you're starting to get to a period of. construct and we're just starting to see the front end of the upstream dynamic. >> unfortunate we're out of time but thanks so much for joining us. john stankey, really appreciate it. [applause] so up next we have the ceo and founder of mashable, pete

cashmore. [applause] so pete and you come very different type of business. you build a digital content business in about a year ago you start investing heavily in video edges with a couple months ago you announced a big investment with turner. tell us about this partnership with turner and what brings you here to a room full of a lot of television and cable executives. >> mashable is a startup and it's a decade old at this point. the first wave was newspapers and mes ms. -- magazines come online. were able to build one of the biggest new media companies with the biggest distribution and build the future of the newspapers and magazines online. i think it's quite clear there's another revolution happening which is how are people going to

consume video in the future. and i think smart companies like harder on looking at this and saying that we are aiming at ott. we think there's some over the top solution this going to work as well. we bring to them, we have a data platform which is about producing content more efficiently, targeting audiences better. i think participation which is something that we've always had to do, and i think really it's about marrying those threats together. .. we came up with velocity about three years ago because our readers want to know what's new and what's next in media and across the web and we saw our editor sitting on social media trying to figure out what's going on so at the

same time our readers would look at our site and say i want to know what's the most shared thing now, the most vital thing because everybody's already seeing it. i want to see what was upcoming. velocity is a predictive algorithm , it goes on sheer account and a lot of other factors that say i still have time we don't know what is learning but it's looking like things like what does a story on mashable look like versus a competitor that has a 300 url index, 2 million a day and watches the whole web and gives dashboards to our staff is what you should focus on because it's like less in this story, here's what you shouldn't focus on because it's already peaked and we took that into our cms, things like here's where you should focus your feet, but there is where you should avoid and we obviously use that in distribution as well so once we put an article out there we can say, actually, this is going strong on facebook, let's upgraded to the main page or something this is we need to put her on and as we moved into video we

use this to content so we do things like our branded content creators can put in words and say in the past three years, what ideas resonated with female millennial's who are interested in buying a car and they can start the process. we still think the people are incredibly important for coming up with original series for mashable and a branded content but really this ability to look through everything that's worked and we target those people again once you've made the series is really powerful and we found it to be a big advantage in video how do you expect to apply this to your partnership with turner? >> so one of the advantages of mashable is we have online distribution, snapshot discovered, we have youtube, facebook and we are one of the biggest, we have 13 million+ followers online and most influential because we

started at the start of the social revolution. we have the most into influential twitter followers, facebook fans and there's a few parts to the way we are working with the speaker system. one of them is digital distribution, the other is kind of the primary which is developing shows together using our data platforms soit really , why risk assault show when you can have ideas coming from the quayside or our side, analyze the data, to an audience. it makes it a safer bet. we are also working with, we signed up for a series deal with bravo to do the same thing, create shows for them to run digitally and on turner, the other thing we are doing is branded content so we announced our new front in new york on friday that we are actually looking to bring branded content all the way to linear in the future so that would be a unique offering for advertisers to say you had a hit piece of branded content, now you can take it all the way to linear. >> you been having a lot of conversations with television companies. what you see about their needs and how their needs are evolving in this new landscape? >> so i think it's been really interesting, it's a completely different world

when you look at it. i really have been learning a lot about how when you produce for tv, there's a group of people that come together for a project and we in digital media have always been about people learn from the interaction and learn from the readers and they are therefore whatever project. it's a different personnel function there but the real needs are digital distribution and this is surprising on the digital era, if you have a hit show how do you target the right people and what is it show now? because more and more with velocity we can target the right people to the right show so what used to be a niche show that wasn't big enough for television is suddenly something that is very sustainable. >> it interesting that after these big business things online you are sifting so much attention toward not just digital video but also traditional, old-fashioned television. does that mean there's less

opportunity in traditional online advertising menu bought for. >> when you're aiming at online, when we talk about tv, people start to think about okay, it's a screen in my house and it must come this particular pipe. what we are talking about is you know, in some cases and in many cases you have a bundle still but it's going to come to your house in a different way so when we talk about aiming at the future of td, it still is technically online. it's coming to you probably through your internet connection and everyone is aiming at that and that is the future and is more data-driven, more competitive so you need to fight for your audience but it's still online. the dollars are still technically online dollars if we go to gp, it's just a different way of getting a media. >> so what's the biggest challenge for you as you shift gears from mashable? >> i think, i think we spend as you said kind of the last ... if you want to understand where digital media is, it's

two transitions that have happened . one is going from being a similar platform, singular media company to being a multimedia company on multiple platforms. last year we spun off from snap chat. we developed a team for that. we tell stories across multiple platforms with life and a new one we're developing we just announce a deal with developed something like 35 hours a month on the basic side so going from cingular platform, everything happens on mashable.com to multiple formats is something we've done and with mashable studios we get the formula and that was something we launched last summer. the other thing that's changing which is very exciting for us and were very focused on it and mashable studios does it too is the fastest-growing part of our uses branded content so rather than content it's rather than how do we work with brands to make series and integrate their messaging whether it's, we worked with wells fargo on a series called mashable explains

finance. we have a series called mashable explains which is videos, we want millennial to be interested in finance but how do we make it fun and entertaining and get across the message? so those are the two big changes in media over the last couple of years especially digital companies and we think that mashable studios really nailed both of those which is why we now focus all our video resources as of a couple of months ago under the mashable studios better because it's really hitting those two points you look back at the history of television, there were sponsored game shows. going back. >> bringing it back. >> that's the question, bringing it back are there going to be challenges to that? is there going to be resistance from madison avenue and viewers? you think people that will be more skeptical when they turn on the tv, translate. >> i think disclosure is very important.what we found a video's disclosure is more important, you can get across

a lot more information in the video format so as long as it's great content, as long as disclosure is clear, i think viewers want great content. i love shows like comedians in cars getting coffee. it's sponsored by another company yes but it's really entertaining and that's why they care about the viewer and i know that it altered but viewers are aware that that kind of media is paid for and i think if the disclosure is clear, they are perfectly happy with that. >> we were just talking with a t and t entertainment and a little bit about this,there are all of these new bundles . you have amazon prime video, you have verizon go 90, everyone is in who, working on livevideo bundles. what is the future of these bundles and where does mashable fit into that? >> we announced on friday deal with go 90 and amazon prime video . i think nobody really knows

who will win in the bundle play but it's a great time to be a content creator because more and more people want content in their bundles because we have that millennial audience and more and more people are paying to get your content into the bundle and competing for great premium content so i think when you are creating something people want, you are well-positioned. i think there will be a few that consumers decide okay, this is the bundle i'm going to go for an people focus on those bundles but right now it's kind of this, there's a lot of opportunity and for us it's just you know, which bundles do we want to be part of an let them compete for our content. >> but is it a bitof a constant bubble right now because there are so many buyers they can't possibly all succeed , is that the implication? number i think it's really just a huge opportunity. if you think of the size of this opportunity, if this really is the future of how to get your media and you look at how large the entire cable ecosystem is, if a lot

of those dollars are up for grabs and it's well worth people trying to figure out if they can be a bundle provider, not all of them will be, not every network will be able to assess differentiated content. mashable is not trying to find a bundle and paid them 10 bucks a month, we'd like to be a content provider to those bundles but you know, i think ultimately that will figure itself out and it's great to be a content creator right now. >> in terms of your own business, making video is a lot more expensive than print articles. how do you manage a business with these higher costs of creating video? >> it's also higher margin so it's also about earlier today, we had 69 percent growth growth in branded content over the past year it's our fastest-growing part of our business. i think certainly we spent a couple years investing, figuring out video , realizing that it's more expensive to produce but there's also a higher margin on the branded stuff. what's really different about the way mashable approaches it and the reason that

networks are coming to us for creating thedigital serious and even their linear series is , we use data a lot more. the great thing about being online is that prince is with our series, which we featured at our new front on friday. we had something show up in the mashable velocity dashboard. he's written a book about it. it was bubbling up on the web. covered the text article and it went viral. we said this is interesting, we will make a pilot. a pilot for us is on video. we can put it on facebook, get all the data back. watching it, when are they watching it and we say this is big. it got 500,000 views, we didn't market it and we said we make a whole series. we recorded the second series of that, six episodes, it ran digitally. many millions of views and we look at that and we say how can we do this again and how can we repeat the process with longer terms, with data coming from across the three years of velocity?

it's a much more affordable way to make video and exactly the same as the previous era, we don't have this huge legacy business that's really expensive to maintain. we can come up with something, see if the data supports it, see if we have an audience we can target and make it without much thought. >> you find the data you get from your velocity algorithms is different in terms of the impact on video than it is on trends? >> absolutely. the main thing we've evolved and we still do it is velocity was definitely design for a quick turn and what we've done over the past few years as we've evolved video, velocity can tell you with about 83.3 percent accuracy when is the share going to double on this story? and then it can give you a topical view and say here are the topics you should be focus on now in the political race, this particular about trump is fading off more you can look at anything on the web and see how much life it has left it. with video we do longer terms. we will commit to a whole series. for video it's about looking at the historical database.

>> it takes a lot more time to make a video than write an article. >> we can make video very quickly and we do that. it's more that takes longer if we are working together with a brand to figure out together is this something you want to do but we don't necessarily call them up in five minutes later when we made a video get approval for it. it takes a little longer. there's a bit more communication going on. we would love to do that people can watch it. we're doing that in effect with a couple brands this year where we actually take over their whole content strategy, produce on our site and on our cms and do really quickterms including taxes and video so we are doing that. we hope to see more of that as well. >> on the heels of your newfound presentation and as upfront go on now to have you here , talking about this so pete cashmore, thanks for joining us. i appreciate it. [applause] >> for our next conversation, please welcome senior editor of media atrico , peter costa and his guest the chief

executive officer and cofounder of fan duel, nigel eccles. >> a nigel. we did one of these in february. >> we did. >> you're a good person to talk to for a couple months as you said this keychain. a lot of people in the crowd probably first heard about you last summer, last fall, blanketed the airwaves of pbs. it kind of look like your entire industry and company was going to be shut down, you're still here. >> much so. >> what you folks are the quick update about where you are at legally and still operating but not everywhere in the us.>> that's correct. to give you an idea, we obviously as you taught last october, the industry had a crisis point and previously the sports has operated for 50 years thought suddenly people are starting to question the legality of all this and what then happened was, and the number of the

state ag's question the reality. >> attorney generals. >> the state is gambling on us. >> our perspective is a game of skill still in federal law is clear on games of skill are legal. some people have different opinions on that so in a number of states we had a late for example, texas, hawaii and new york we stopped operating. >> new york, texas. >> that's correct. >> i was reading beforehand that a quarter of the country can no longer play your games. >> about 25 percent of the population, that's correct. >> you thought it was going to be a year ago. you didn't anticipate that. >> we certainly did. what i would say is i always knew, fantasy sports, the laws that apply to fantasy sports work fine when this was a small, grassroots activity. 50 million people play it but you know, it wasn't a big business. we knew at the start of

becoming a big business that wasn't going to become a multibillion-dollar unregulated industry so we knew we had to get from here to there . we went there and we didn't think it would happen as quickly so that's the big thing that's happened so in some of those states like texas, we exited those but what we've been doing is working with legislators and i think in almost over 30 states to say online sports is enormously popular. we are supportive of consumer protection regulations so let's clarify the laws and putting consumer protection regulations and we've been very successful so we seem bills been introduced in almost 30 states in the last six months. it was really quite phenomenal. we seem bills pass and become laws in almost 60. >> you basically have to do this state-by-state and lobby each legislature same would

you create a law that allows us to exist. >> that's correct. federal law we think is very clear so it's at the state level where people are looking at this going, okay, maybe the law is as clear as you would like but we also want to putting consumer protection so in light virginia which is the first state to pass a law that said okay, we clarified that his game of still legal in virginia but we want you to register and we want you to do things to make sure you are protecting players and that's where we signed up >> state-by-state , each proposition you have to spend time and money, raise a bunch of money . when you guys are raising all this money, raising hundreds of millions of dollars last summer you did not have to say you are going to spend your money on going state to state, lobbying and spending a lot of marketing. are there things you thought you were going to use that money for and expansions you had to put on hold because of financial reasons and also because youare not sure where the future is going. >> i'd say we definitely cut

back on marketing and increasing regulatory and legal . i would say in investment in the products, that has been as much and greater than last year. we as a company we are transforming the way people consume sports and not a multiyear effort so we actually expanded our product engineering teams over the last few months because we want the product to keep getting better, delivering that mission of transforming sports entertainment. >> and you are able to hire engineers and not worry you're going to go out of business question mark. >> know, that's been good. last year we acquired a company called number fire which drove sports analytics so that was very strong. today, even more recently we've been bringing people on that and understand our living as a platform to drive that supports engagement. >> let's talk about the marketing, the beginning of this conversation everyone here works aware of draft kings and fans will they certainly were last fall, it became a running joke.

you spent hundreds of millions of dollars, hours a week on advertising. in retrospect, was that a good idea? >> i would say we definitely made mistakes. we wanted to generate that awareness, we knew we had a project that people loved and our biggest issue is that most people were aware of it. we thought we knew what people liked about the product and we think the level of advertising ... we didn't sell to all the benefits of the product, the fun of the product and we obviously, we overexpose it, over time we were getting there and i think the niche in the market blew up last year. >> there's two possible negative side effects of blanketing. one is turning people off your product and two, i think, it seems like you raise your profile enough that people like the attorney general of new york said i'm

going to look at this company i wasn't paying attention to. is that part of the backlash? legal backlash? >> whenever we put it out there, people were going to ask the question so i think the issues we were going through that were going to happenanyway , i just don't think they were going down as quickly as they half. >> so you spent hundreds of millions, hundreds of millions collectively last fall on football related ads. football is what drives your business, right? >> there's been a shift. so football largely is certainly still the biggest sports, but basketball has been the fastest growing on and if you look over the last 15 years, one of the biggest drivers of consumption of the nfl has been fantasy sports and basketball really hasn't seen that growth. what we're seeing is nfl is still very important for the number one importance but

what we areseeing is huge increases in consumption of nba which is i think within a few years nba from their perspective will be number one. >> interesting. in your term , this fall as you make a push to recruit people during football season, what's going to be different this year? are you going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars? >> we are going to step back ... last year it was about awareness. we have tons of awareness, that's not an issue. this year though is more about testing, introducing new aspects of the product, just explaining how fantasy and fanduel is fun. that's something we made a mistake on last year was, it became quite serious and we wanted to be more about fun. >> it wasn't about how much money you could make that was the focus and we wanted more to get back to people play fantasy because it's fun. that's all the research and our advertising myth that. >> not doing it as a vocation. >> he wanted to keep it sort of clearly explain it as fun and we want to have fun as well. it's part of the advertising,

a core part of the sports experience. the advertising is not fun, you switch off on it and it's bad for us. >> so the tone of the ad will change, you may it more fun. i assume you don't compare notes with the folks at draftkings don't know what they are going to end in terms of, i was watching football last year, i had to see adsfor both of you guys. basically every commercial break. are you going to pour money into tv and football broadcasting? >> tv is still important. i don't think there's any medium that's as good as telling a story and building a brand as td but we've seen a shift over the last few years of more and more digital . particularly social and particularly mobile. the opportunity to target and the opportunity to attract there is so much stronger and it's a thirdly, the opportunity to change our stand on mobile and social is very powerful and so in the

future, i see the shift more toward those channels away from td. >> so the overall spending increase? >> it will not increase in margin, it will be significant. >>significantly overall. the mix is going to be more digital. >> that's correct. >> other people you feel you can reach because you have one product should be advertising . you've got to watch the nfl. i guess there are other ways to watch it now but it seems like if anything you guys should be pushing td. >> tv is still core part of it, absolutely but the great thing for us is we know exactly where our plans are. on sports television and so we can target them very closely. it's a anchor to it but there is still shift away to digital and mobile. >> are there pockets of digital and mobile you think that are underutilized as a marketer? >> this will be smaller ones like i say on digital like facebook for us is very effective. it gives us great targeting.

they're very innovative and were looking what we can do with facebook this year is more impressive then we can do last year. >> what are some examples? >> innovative ways of targeting people, innovative ways of for example like payments where there's a cross install instead of a cpm. >> is that because their product has changed or ... >> they are feeding more advertising and advertising friendly. >> and you want someone to download the gallego. >> they're doing very well. >> is there also benefits you are not going to have that same sort of public profile that's going to write more attorney general's . >> certainly we like that we have the awareness. i think as we shift our messaging more about this fun of the product and it being fun, and kind of introduce people to part of the product that we didn't really talk

much about, i think that's better for us as a brand. >> and part of your pitch has been that you work with many of the sports investors, investors and your competitor or you work with individual teams. have any of them. for the last year. >> no, not at all. the nba is an investor in us and we are partnering with them. we partnered with 16 nba teams and the number of nfl teams. they are core part of our brand story. the eventual is about sports so we want one of our mantras is bringing people closer to sports. if you're a cleveland fan and take into account your game and i can put them on the front row, we can only dothat cause we are partners . >> i understand why you would want to partner with them but are they all about ... >> they been incredibly supportive. they see particularly the nba, this is such a driver of sports consumption that they have been very supportive of

what we have done over the last six months. >> we were talking backstage about assuming that you get to a point where you are no longer fighting state battles, what you can do once that opens up for you. one of the things you want to do is become more of a media platform. >> yes. >> one of your pictures to the networks investors, i think nbc, you guys, fox , and draftkings, i was surprised to hear that that you want to become a media platform. >> absolutely. we have several million engaged millennial's, 18 to 35-year-old males. they are incredibly engaged. there on the platform every day so for someone like bud light we just partnered with and our competition, that's an absolute demographic we want so what we've done is we branded that competition bud light area we started to play

off the nba playoffs, we had tournaments every day and the last few finals so that's a way for them to reach their base and it's also attractive to our base because the brand theyassociate with . >> on a marketing you guys then. >> it's more us marketing them but it's definitely a brand association. >> are they paying you for that question mark. >> yes. >> so you are generating advertising revenue. >> we think in time it could become a revenue scheme for us and of coursethe biggest one . >> is the biggest one, yes. >> was that always a plan? we will get to that point? >> for some time, we knew the level and engagement we were driving. we knew that was interesting advertisers so we really were trying to work out a way to get more of them. >> more of a consumption for use on thephone . >> over 80 percent of our users are on the phone a

>> there is three parts to it. the first is research. second, construction of the team and third is live scoring experience. a lot of research has been on the web, but we are putting more in the apps. the lineup is largely on the phone and the live scoring experience is nearly all on the phone. people in the sports bar, at home, it is easier to check on the phone than laptop. >> are you able to say we can show a bump in engagement, viewership? >> we have already done the analysis where we can show an increasing in consumption particularly in nba. we showed that people were going from average of watching four games a week to watching seven games a week.

the interesting thing, i think, is if you think of that experience, we are trying to put it all in the app, and the golden opportunity is the live scoring experience of watching the game in the app. see what the players are doing, watch the clip, and there is lebron scoring three points for me. i want to do that in the app. >> you want to watch the game on the phone? >> i think that is a great opportunity. >> those rights are very expensive and owned by the tv network and twitter? >> that is that challenge but we look at the league and how they are unbundling and they are going over the top and saying these rights are separate because for some of the audience they are not getting them through subscription and in

linear format. i think it is an additive one for the millennial audience. >> you have two very similar companies, serious and xm, seems logical they would combine, receptacle to that idea? >> no update. we are focus on the business and excited about the trajectory over the next few years. >> are the players loyal to one brand or app? >> cas ual players tend to be fans of one but heavy players tend to like both. people are like i like this on that platform and this on that one. >> the other big issue, marketing and perception wise,

was one story saying you positioned this as anyone you can do and all of the winning goes to a handful of players and mit. this isn't a game -- you will lose. how do you fight back against that perception in reality? >> that is a big challenge and narrative we need to take on. the first thing is we absolutely said at the start this is a game of skill. the more you work at it the better you get. we have the sunday competition and that is the most challenging and hardest to get into and win. we have new player leagues, ginner leagues, 50-50s, and only have top half wins. you see these are the ones you ask be playing.

>> you can still have the the computer jockeys? >> yeah, they can be in the kiddy pool. >> no, we want to make sure they are not there. we screen them and with the regulations we are putting in carve out areas with only new players. >> then you have to get the marketing up and you can put in an hour and -- >> absolutely. you can put in a dollar and playing with other people who just started the project and playing with a friendly environment. the other one on the social side is playing your friends and not developing the eye. you know how good you and thing you are better than them. >> so you have games where it is

me and my buddies and not outsiders. >> you will that more this year. you have been always able to do it but we with pushing it this year. >> a year ago, very exciting, unicorn to the right, and now a lot of people faulted and you faulted in a public way. what is the biggest lesson you have taken from a rough year? >> you know, i lived through this in 2000. we had a startup back then and went through a lot of challenges. ultimately we became a successful company. startups don't grow in linear fashion. you have to deal with the bumps as they come.

we have been at this and we had moments early on where we were one week away from having to shutdown because we could not raise money. startups cause uncertainty. that is part of the thrill of being an entrepreneur. if you don't have the stomach for uncertainty don't do it. >> thanks for talking to me multiple times a year. i appreciate it. thanks for coming out. i want to switch gears and going to kevin bake from periscope. come up.

this is your second company. second startup. >> yeah, our first startup, my cofounder joe and i started a company where we built mobile applications for universities. >> started off in education tech and now media. >> i like to think we started out building things we wanted to use. we were students and wanted to build something we could use. there is no different with periscope. we wanted to help people see the world and with the first startup we graduated and couldn't be consumers but we use periscope every year. >> you had an interesting 18 months. sold the company to twitter. launched a little more than a year ago. we did one of these conversations a year ago. same chairs.

how are things different now? >> i think it is special to work with someone who is the inventor of the product over a decade ago. as the inventor, you have a spiritual connection with the product that i think is rare. joe and i certainly feel passionate about what we do at periscope. so to be able to do what we do and work closely with jack and his context and vision for what he sees put his value in the world is really special. someone i admired as well. >> he came on in an interim fashion last summer and full time ceo last fall. he said there are things i might give that are different marching ord orders.

>> he was one of the biggest advocate of twitter joining periscope. >> i am taking my phone to put a clock on not to periscope you. the screens are dark and we need to know when to leave. so no different marching orders? >> his marching orders were continuing to do what you are doing which is build out your product. >> a year ago you were live streaming and there was a company called mere cat that looks like competition, they went away, now you have facebook doing livestreaming. that is the real competition. they are playing celebrities to live stream, media companies including one i work out to stream and youtube is looking at this. what is it like to compete head-to-head with facebook? >> i think the media likes to

paint a dramatic picture about competition. the reality is when we enter the market they were never the first. we wanted to be something else, the best or different or something that wasn't first. that helped us not get fixated on the notion we were not the only ones but were first and helps us focus on what we want to be which is a fantastic product. >> so is facebook. >> it isn't the first time companies have incentivized people to broadcast. >> facebook had 800,000 people

watching an exploding watermelon. they were going to have an interview with president obama but didn't work but i am sure they will try again. mark zuckerberg says this is important to him. it isn't just any other competitor. >> other companies are investing in this. >> do you think that is a reaction to you? >> what do you think? >> it could be a random coincidence. >> our reaction is doubling down and staying the course and building a product people want to use. when we first launcheded the narrative was different, it was

this is interesting, people don't want to spend time live streaming, and a bunch of other pessimistic views on whether this median is interesting for people to use. i am excited that that conversation has evolved to the point where no one questions the efficacy of the space but other narratives like how can periscope succeed compared to other competitors. >> you want want to mention facebook by name even. i have a question about live. i love the internet. and i love the internet for a bufsh of reasons. i can do whatever i want to do when i want to do it. i love that on-demand notion spread to things like getting cars or watch gamef of thrones at 9:30.

>> i like the fact i can walk around the streets and at the snap of the fingers command an audience of hundreds of thousands of people. something like super hero like that and i think it is novel and people will exercise it. i think that is new. from a consumption standpoint, what makes it different is even though we are used to the luxury of hbo go, there is something live about periscope that brings value and purpose to the action and as a viewer i can affect the experience. when i watch a tv show live the fact it is live playmama may ma spiritually -- i cannot ask wolf blitzer a question on cnn.

but if i am watching you and the fact you can respond a few seconds there is something different about the feedback. i think it justifies me taking out the need and saying peter is live let me jump in. >> you said it is novel. are you encouraging people to professionalize what they are doing? >> i think novelty is what may drive them to check it out but the interaction of the product will get them to stay. what attracts a broadcaster to come back is different than what attracts a viewer. the reality is we focus on both of those tracks differently. like in the context of broadcasters we try to make the tools in your toolbox more and more interesting over time.

we launched go-pro innovation and your drone so you can switch between the three in the same broadcast and that is another creative lever theyed didn't have before. we can to keep evolving so it can be a utility used to interact with the audience. >> does it make sense to have that function built into the hardware itself? >> sure. >> like not an app but the button and you are periscopeing. >> i think using the phone as the nexus has advantages but you may have devises -- that makes sense with the go-pro, but if you have an ex teternal camera

probably want to touch a button. >> does twitter need to be in the hardware business or can you work a software thing? >> i don't think we need to be in the hardware space. i think there is a lot you can accomplish with software and innovation and billing and api on top of that. >> one thing facebook is doing is you can record it and push it out on. is that something you want to do? >> i think we want more live platforms. they don't have to be captured by mobile device, but i think it means it could come from a device that is not any of those. it can come from studio feed that is cutting together multiple camera angles.

periscope is a platform for truth and empathy and what we can say about that is when you see something it says live and you know it is happening and being captured by someone's device and somewhere in the world and there is something powerful about that. when we enter a world where we get non-phone inputs into the ecosystem we have to denote that in a way where the viewer can make the decision so the viewer can say i understand it is not being captured by the phone but the platform served that information. >> celebrities will use periscope. are there people who have become celebrities on periscope who are native to that form and periscope stars? >> definitely. i think one of the amazing things is you have

microcommunities of stars isn't necessarily the right term but niche communities like the potter community and they will spend hours broadcasting their art and attracting others who inspire to be potters or want to observe the craft. >> how do you make money on periscope if you are a mini celebrity or celebrity? >> the platform isn't direct making money. >> there is no montization? >> no. but we are starting to see brands experiment with promoted tweets. dorito's used it during the super bowl when they were periscopeing and promoted the tweet of the periscope. i think with their existing

twitter audience they can go to brands or sponsors and bring it on to the periscope platform with a collaboration. >> i am assuming advertising will come eventually. >> if we pursue advertising we would feel strongly about not doing the traditional my buddy peter is live but before watching him on the pier with the dog we have to watch a 15-second pre-roll. we would like to be more inspired but that is one mechanisms we can use. >> it worked well for youtube. it allowed them to distribute the money to creators and build up an ecosystem. >> it is very effective way to monetize. >> are there things you were doinot doing a year ago that you can

now tech nick technology wise? >> we didn't own as much stack a year ago where as we rebuilt infrastructure. >> how many people are working on periscope? >> we have 40 pull-time employees. >> it is a small company. gl >> we have the benefit of collaborating with friends at twitter and get to leverage the best or relevant parts of twitter via com team, video infrastructure folks, support, or other technical support that helps us do what we can do without having more full-time people. >> does periscope become a function of twitter at some point? this week you said you are testing the go-live button on twitter. >> we think there is value in separate apps and real estate but that doesn't mean you will

not see more integration. if you stumble into periscope, you are seeing live and you will see the go-live button and more innovation but you will continue to see periscope invest in if you have a separate app on your phone that is all about seeing and creating live video what does that look and feel like, we think that deserves to be its own space. >> another thing that is different a year ago is there was discussion about the piracy and the fighting and people watching fights or baseball through periscope. has the conversation died down? >> i think the conversation started because it was the first time probably where you had a breakaway consumer live application and there was a lot

of hub bub about the idea of is periscope -- >> piracy and pornography are the things that crop up. >> those are two things that popped up since we pitched investors. i think a couple things happen. people realize that periscope is a very effective tool to use for piracy -- isn't. if you want a bootleg copy of game of thrones there is probably better ways. at the end of the day, i think we did a good job of being vocal externally about this isn't something we want on the platform and we have a lot of procedures in place to be responsive to that stuff. i think over time, the other thing that helps the external perception is a lot of partners who were concerned about the content being redistributed on periscope became users of the product. you mention baseball and the dodgers and nets are using bear scope to stream batting

practice. that creates the conception that periscope is a place i go to to watch the dodgers or the broadcast this morning. i think the combination of that helped. >> six months ago, cnbc was kicking people out of their studio because they were parascoping. we will come back in a year and see what changed again. >> sounds good. >> thanks for having me. >> with congress out this week we are featuring booktv in prime time beginning at 8 p.m. eastern. tonight, recent book festivals including san antonio, annapolis, and the national black writers conference. that is tonight beginning at 8 p.m. eastern. and this week, c-span's washington journal wile be live from the mexico border in larado, texas where we will

examine illegal immigration, citizenship and deportation law. here as a conversation we had with a mexican driver who crosses the border several times a day. >> i have seven years of experience as a truck driver. how long does the process take? >> you are talking about three months of training before you can make any trips. >> how many trips do you do? >> approximately two round trips which is equivalent to four boxes daily. >> what does four boxes mean? >> four crosses. two imports and two exports daily. >> tell me about a typical day on the road. what time do you begin and finish?

>> i begin approximately at 8 a.m., and usually end around 11 p.m. i get to the truck, seal the truck, check the field, head to the mexican customs to process. if i get a green light, i continue. on once i arrive, i show my cdl and visa. if i cross, i show my visa and ses card. it all depends if the official sends me. today i got a search. that is the process sometimes. i have to go through the inspection ramp and x-ray and

continue on. what is your salary? >> 400-500 pesos to 600 pesos weekly. >> how much is that in dollars? >> $300-400 a week. it is not a high or low salary. >> i am able to pay my mortgage, obviously, we don't live with luxury but we don't live too bad. with what i earn, it is enough to survive. >> tomorrow, washington journal will be live from laredo, texas. we will speak to the managing director and editor for bright

bart texas on illegal immigration in the area. also, local immigration lawyer discusses citizenship and deportation laws. and dallas morning news mexico city bureau chief examines the impact of mexican drug cartels. thursday's focus is trade. san antonio express reporter will discuss trade across the laredo border. congress man henry from texas talks about trade benefiting laredo and the country. bob cash, state director fl the texas fair trade coalition and a nafta critic looks at the trade deal impact on jobs from south texas to mexico. washington journal starting at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span wednesday and thursday. national defense university recently hosted a discussion on integrating women into the u.s.

military combat roles. a panel including several former and current service women address concerns about mental health, unit cohesion, and holding women to the same standards at male counterparts. >> ladies and gentlemen, take your seats. we will start in a moment. >> this time i welcome dr. michael bell, the chancellor of the college of international security affairs to begin with opening remarks. >> welcome to the college of nation security affairs. for those that are new to the

college, we are the newest of ndu's five colleges. the five colleges that comprise the university. our mission is to educate and prepare officers and national security professionals and partner countries for the security challenges for the temporary environment. we are the department of defense flagship for education and building partner capacity in regular warfare and combat at the strategy and policy level. a great opportunity, a work shop on women's integration into the u.s. military. the bases for this came from the white house's national action plan and from that a series of tasks to raise greater awareness, greater inclusion, greater sensitivity, to a range of issues to include gender and how it affects resolving challenges, the integration of gender perspective into plans

and strategies. the secretary of defense recently announced all military occupations in the u.s. military be open to women. this decision will certainly shape the way the u.s. engages in current and continuing conflict and the ones we will face in the future. our students ne here, how is th research and thesis coming? going okay? great opportunity to engage on this important topic with scholars and practitioners. for many of you, this will take you out of your comfort zone, expose you to different perspectives you are not aware of. we should also thing about why is this important.

we will have issues of organizational culture, institutional change, and leading managers through transitions and ultimately the-base best way to master challen challenges. the first focuses on challenges that the secretary of defense, ash carter's, announcement poses for the military for gender interation and how we will move forward on that. interestingly enough, 40 years ago is when women first entered the united states military academy, 25 years ago we faced

big challenges for desert storm where women served roles that were never considered under our policies at the time down at brigade level and the case and we are looking for the most talented people and the most available male soldier to fill the positions. the second panel looks at how gender identification can shape the battlefield. amazing topics here today. if you have a question, please identify yourself and say if you are a fellow or an outside guest, just so the panelist know

who are the students and who are not. we look forward to a great interaction. dr. bateman? >> i am the associate dean of curriculum at the college of international security affairs. before getting started, i would like to remind the audience that c-span is filming this and broadcasting live on the c-span2 network and we are broadcasting through the ndu television network and on live stream. each panelist presents for ten minutes on their topic and at the conclusion of their presentation they will open the floor to about 40 minutes of q&a.

all four have written on gender inrotundatration into the military. i will the bios are in the program but for the benefit of the television audience starting here on stage right. a research fellow at side king center for international diplomacy and research focusing on intersection of cultural and structural forces on political participation. she is focused on how gender roles shape political participati participatipar adverti participati participation. ms. hunter is a former military member and a co-founder of a non-profit focused on elimina eliminating gender based bias and she will focus on citizenship and integration of

women into the military. dr. thomas is the next panelist. she is onsistent professor of health promotion at charleston university. dr. thomas is a marine core veteran and helps businesses and military businesses include the holistic care of life and will present on the concerns of health care of women in the military. the next panelist is a senior fellow with women in international security where she directs the combat integration initiative project. her research focuses on women and gender in the military. she is a graduate of the u.s. military academy and a distingui distinguished visiting colleague at the war college and completing a phd at george mason university school for conflict analysis and resolution and will

present on cohesion and mixed gender units. and the last panelist is sue folten who is a member of the first class to commit women and was a signal officer serving as a platoon leader before receiving an honorable discharge. she worked briefly with the campaign for military service and supported bill clinton's effort to overturn the military ban on gay service. in 2011, president obama appointed her to the west point board of visitors and in 2015 she was selected a chairperson of the board of visitors at west point making her the first women graduate. we will start with kyleanne

hunter and i have time cards and if we get close to the ten minutes i will flash the card at you. otherwise, please begin with the presentation. >> thank you for that introduction and thank you for coming. our purpose is to open discussion here and open dialogue because with the nature of the audience being leaders in your respected fields and countries there is a lot we can learn from one another that is going to both shape our research and advocating efforts as well as help with the integration that is now going on. i am going to speak at a high level about the issue of women's integration in the u.s. air forces. the other panelist are going to be speaking more nuts and bolts about some of the mechanics and actual challenges. to kick off the conversation, i think it is important to discuss what is the relationship between being a citizen and being a soldier and understanding how

some of the theoretical ways he think about citizenship and soldi soldiers has shaped the conversation and what opportunities are presented for coming generations with combat organization. the idea of the citizen shoulder goes back to ancient greek times when you think about these democracies and what it means to be a good citizen and reach the height of citizenship is sold r soldiers and the ability to go lay your life down for your country. this idea has been used by several minority groups and out groups to gain full citizenship rights. there is a scholar by the name of ronald krebs who developed theory of rhetorical cochersion

and this is people that have been either formal or informally been treated as less citizens whether that is with pay or their vote didn't count as much. military service has the power to be able to leveraged to gain more rights. the example is the case of african-americans in the united states and where their service, particularly during world war ii, served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement and then becoming more included in the actually formula of citizenship. you see this in israel with the d

druid community. with they were brought in as a service they were able to leverage that and gain equal citizen rights they were pr previousl previously denied. when you think about women in america, you think about equal rights, they are equal citizens and there is no barriers to their political participation or economic participation. however, if you kind of pull back the lens and you look a little more big picture. the inability for women to serve in an equal capacity to men provides an untangible barrier to citizenship. it provides more or less a second class citizenry. when even the women who have chosen to serve, their debt is a

little less, you are not a real soldier or marine because you didn't go into the combat or have ground combat. now you are seeing with this legal restriction being in place it has really denied a lot of the service women have actually done. you see, i think, some of us from the panel up here, and i know many of you have peers, where they have done the same things their male counterparts have done in combat and yet received this equal recognition for it. this is really the impetus for why there has been a big push for integration and equal integration. we have seen this played out, now in particular, with the selective service argument. and why women should be involved in the selective service and why they shouldn't. for thosef us who have foreign service, the selective service is called the draft. it is important to take away

some of that misnomer here. it doesn't necessarily mean when you register and you go and you have to serve in the military but it is the list of available people to be called up in case of military conflict. and opening this is really i think the next step for the future coming generations of full inclusive citizenship. what opening something like the secret service, or allowing for full military integration, is going to give women that same citizenship leverage. it is going to give the mixed generation of women coming up with the ability to say we have the same rights and abilities to go sacrifice for our country as anybody else. we have the same possibility of being called up if our country is to get involved in a high level conflict. and this symbolic power is very

important for scitizenship and important as you see women get involved in the political and economic arena to make a pure level playing field. i think that i will conclude here with just high level comments and pass it over to kate to get down to more of the nuts and bolts. >> we will test my ability with the microphone here. thank you so much for having me today. i want to talk about something those of you who have command or held command in the past probably speak about frequently and that is the question of mental fitness and health as an issue. interestingly, i want to go over the issue hof the background and how it relates to service women.

stress injury, depression, anxiety conditions are predictors of suicide which becomes a problem for our force increasingly. that wasn't the case 15 years ago. that wasn't the case years ago. interestingly, the conditions cooccur . we have serious cultural issues and those in the audience are aware of the population. i like to say you can keep your couch. that is how a lot of service members who are suffering with

conditions feel. we talk about combat stress when service separation is a likely predictor or feelings of alienation and low levels of support. i worked with a team of researchers to explore that range on the fly for a last couple years. we are trying to look for variables both demographic and behavioral. we need to understand that mental health issues are readiness issues at the basic level. much of the studies we have ran have large sample sizes. i will share pieces of those with you.

it isn't just about problem scope and prevalence and who is likely to have the issues but it is about how we target intervention programming and what should the content look like of the said programming. i will share results that use data from the centers for disease control. this particular set of regression analysis had a large sample size, over 54,000 respondants, and 4,000 women were used in the breakouts. any time we talk about a large cross sectional survey, i know a lot of you are aware, this is a pinpoint in time.

we were looking specifically for who has a diagnose, and who is walking around displaying symptoms of an undiagnosed condition. we expected to see somewhere around 15% with the diagnose and that is what we saw. almost 8% of our sample were self-reporting symptoms that indicate an undiagnosed condition. those undiagnosed conditions can be a problem. women were more than twice as

likey to have an existing diagnose. they were also more than 1.7 times more likely to be displaying symptoms of an undiagnosed condition. we looked at the variable of service era because this wasn't just active duty members. this was a veteran population and interestingly you are most likely to display undiagnosed systems if you are post-9/11 era. the question is there is an issue by what? why is there an issue? colonel harring is going to go into details but for female service members there are issues with social support and cohesion that make it more likely they

will have poor mental health outcomes. for all service members, men and women, specifically you have practical, we talk about practical and statistical significance. practical matters to the co and at the unit level and statistical matters on a chart. we have such significance when we break out the variable by people who report not having a lot of social support in their lives. if you have a lower level of social support you are likely to have these issues. it hasn't been ideally cohesive for service member. dr. brown from the university of history said stories are data with the soul.

there has been a lot of important qualitative research that has collected these stories from service women and they tell us we have institutional issues, leadership issues, trauma experience issues that are creating mental health issues for our service members. in addition to structural and leadership change, we have to be talking about targeting our behavioral health inventions. this is where we start talking about mental fitness training in our force i get engaged, excited and interested because we are doing a terrible job right now. we can be doing this better. resilient traits are the traits that allow you to take a punch in the teeth, allow you to weather stress, and those can be trained, cultivated and tested for. they are extremely specific.

they involve a lot of agentic down regulation of an individual's nervous system programming to teach people to do this sort of thing is really best done in a peer-led environment. it needs to be tailored to subpsu subpopulations and we can do that. but what is key in the military population as we move forward and see integration moving forward it is key to understand that you have to have a performance metric attached to such things. it cannot be more powerpoint heavy annual training that people sit in an auditorium and do. mental fitness training can be assessed in the same scale as we assess physical training and i believe that is an important component for our future as behavioral health professionals working with the military population.

so i know colonel harring is going to go into more detail on this predictive variables. thank you very much. >> thank you, kate. yeah, i am going to get more specific to unit cohesion, how it looks, how women impact it. but i will not talk directly to how are women impacted by good cohesion and you made good points and i think your research is fascinating. let's talk about unit cohesion. there has been extensive research on this over the years. we know back to post world war ii era studies it is accepted that cohesion is categorized as vertical and horizontal cohesion. vertical cohesion exists between leaders and followers and the connection that a leader establishes with his or her subordants and the relationship

is an important mechanisms for all participants to engage with the larger institution and impacts the overall cohesioniveness. vertical influences horizontal. horizontal cohesion, the type of cohesion we typically think about is characterized by social cohesion and task cohesion and these are important differences. clear in the literature but often people fail to separate the two in discussions. horizontal cohesion exists across peer groups within an organization. social cohesion describes how well group members like each other. it is their emotional connection and typically develops between people with common backgrounds and similar experiences. while task cohesion on the other hand describes the bonds that arrive among individuals

cooperating to achieve common goals. the relationship between task cohesion and social cohesion and performance is complicated. high social cohesion is known to lead to group think, or situations that are often problematic. there are no specific studies on this but considerable research has been done on gender integrated groups in non-combat roles and research found no negative impact on cohesion.

a number of factors affect dynamic leadership, working conditions, attitudes of team members toward gender integration and organize and culture. mixed gender teams can effective mission objectives, however. this is a summary of a joint special operations university report recently published where they looked at how do women impact cohesions of potentially these so-called teams. that was their finding from their research. interestingly, and surprisingly, to me the research team that did the research failed to interview women that participated in the program or their male counterparts. they did interview other

communities including smoke jumpers and s.w.a.t. team members but not the cst's. they would have been a rich resource to gather cohesion data on gender integrated combat teams. last summer as an independent researcher i convened and conducted focus group discussions with 25 of the women who served on special forces and ranger teams. what i learned is they do believe they impacted team dynamics and this was a surprise to me. i would say it was universally felt by the women interviewed. but their impact they thought was two-fold. all reported their presence did introduce an element of sexual tension. that was their words . but they reported their presence

improved mission outcomes. one of the women who was responsible for collecting the metrics for the ranger teams said that over time a clear picture developed. teams that included women were on average 20% more mission effective than the teams where there were no women present. all of the women said sexual tension existed on the outset but they were easily managed if team leaders acted appropriately. our research was criticized as being anecdotal even though there were 25 women in the research. anecdotal evidence over time present a significant picture. here is one. a senior war officer, and she said that several male team members kind of probed for sexual favors when she was first

introduce today the them. but when she made it clear it was never going to happen the problems seemed to evaporate. we became friends and the sexual tension issues melted away and communicates with some of the men today and is close to the team. this was a common threat in the sexual tension problem; as long as people acted appropriately the issues seemed to melt away. they said the biggest contributing factor to cohesion is being accepted on the team was job competence. they believe the cst selection and screening problem did a good job identifying women who could successfully operate on these teams. they felt was lacking was they had not trained with the teams

before deployment. they should not have to prove capabilities on the ground while bullets are flying. women should be trained with the teams they will support and deploy with so there is no doubt in anyone's mind about who is going to do what and how well they are able to do it. all of the women said that none of them had ever had a teammate try to shield them from fire or take a protective stand on their behalf. they find this myth to be both amusing and insulting to the men they operated with. besides providing properly screened and trained team members leadership was the most important factor where team dynamics and unit cohesion was concerned.

we were taught how to negotiate west point notorious indoor obstacle course. test we would be graded on every year. one of the obstacles is an eight foot wall. we were coached in the approved solution, jump up, grab the top of the wall, a lot to get your shoulders above the top of the wall and flip your body over. a solution that violates the laws of physics for non-native people whose center of gravity is somewhere below their shoulders. in short order, we figured out for ourselves to grab the

top of the wall and hook your ankle, you can use your leg to lever yourself right over the top. and instructors eventually taught that as an alternate solution. soon, women were conquering the obstacle at the same speed as the men. now, times change. that was 40 years ago. the changing socialization of young girls in athletics mean that women got faster and stronger by leaps and bounds. over the years, little girls who grew up on the monkey bars were sued able to get over the wall with upper body select strength like the men did but the lesson i learned was it matters less how you do it. what matters is getting over the wall. i think that's instructed in war fighting. and instructive as we look at what women bring to the fight. because if women in ground combat roles don't make us

stronger, we've screwed it up. the good news is, i have no doubt that they will. there are hundreds of online articles fretting over whether or not we can deal with the fact that in general, the bell curve of women's upper body strength and speed falls short of the curve of men's. questions answered by the way by simply setting the standards right and holding the two on standard but if we all could stop wringing our hands over pull-ups long enough to think as leaders, we focus on what do women bring to the fight? not just the ability to talk to local women in most communities but where do women outperform men on the curve of ability? flexibility, maturity , counseling soldiers, creative problem-solving, i have dozens of stories. the only one in my class who passed a particular recon no

control because instead of citing the squad on the precise grid coordinates she was given in the middle of a swap, she moved the squad less than 100 meters away to the crest of the hill, notified higher and moved on. the nca was yet, not a single one of the guys did that. they all slept, they didn't sleep but they set up overnight in the middle of the swap. the army colonel btl to afghanistan while assigned west point, the only woman in the three-star death call who asked why don't you do it this way?and after a long silence the commanders as well, we've been doing it the other way for over yearwe just never thought of it and asked her if she could extend for six months . the ranger patrol that tested their best navigator to plot the next point , when they arrived the ranger instructor demanded who plotted this solution? i did, confessed christian

grade. well, you did an expletive deleted good job ranger but you're 90 minutes early. what am i going to do with you all now?which briefly to another lesson. i got to know chris well since her graduation from ranger school. and when people ask her why she succeeded, one thing comes up more than anything else. expectations. as a cadet, she asked to join colonel jeff herders infantry mentorship program. he said no problem. you will need to meet the exact same standards that everybody else in the program meets. and he expected her to do it. so she did. he remains one of her mentors. she talks about a key moment in ranger school in the florida swamps. like the other women, she frequently carried the saw, the crew served weapons.

she's going through the swamps, she's shorter than the other rangers and she feels herself blowing down. she feels like she's slowing down the team area patrol is either going to [indiscernable] because of me, she thinks. for the first time in over 100 days in ranger school, she asks someone else to carry the weapon and he does. the ri pulls her aside immediately and said you're getting a major minus. you didn't need to do that. because you could have carried it. now, i heard that story and i thought he was being a little unfair and chris says no, i thank them. that ri did me a favor because i realized he was right. reminding me that he expected me to succeed and i needed to expect that from myself. we've heard a lot about a marine corps study in which women, there's a lot of issues to that study.

when there is an expectation that women are not going to perform as well as men, when they are not expected to perform as well on the rifle range, then chances are over time that those numbers are going to be low and for any of you who want the scholarship on this, i decided not to get into it today but you can research was called the pygmalion effect or its inverse, the goal of effect on expectations matter. you already set high standards. you demand thatyour soldiers meet those high standards . but taking thatextra step , expecting that they will succeed, that's a way to supercharge your leadership. and finally, i haven't talked a lot about being in the first class of women at west point. there was more bullshit than was necessary and i won't bore you with all that. but if i had any credibility

on that counts, let me use it to ask you all as leaders to do a couple things. the woman who will come into your units especially the kind of the unit are not there to make a statement. they are there for the same reason as the guys. to do a job. to challenge themselves. to learn those skills. to blow stuff up. to serve their country. some of them will struggle. don't call them. your job isto maintain high standards and expect they meet them but something else . having a laugh at their expense is easy. and it's tempting. because your guys, once close to you, they are going to laugh. and when you left a comment made by one of your troops there like, the old man is

cool. if you are a woman, making fun of another woman , that's gold . nothing endears you to the guys more than throwing another woman under the bus. you know it. but you know it's cheap. you can make fun of the shortest guy in the unit if he's in on the joke. you can make fun of the black guy who struggles to swim if he's in on the joke. you can make fun of the gay guy if your battle buddy. but if they are not in on the joke, if you are laughing at them and not with them, you are setting fire to the bonds that bring your unit together. because cheap laughs are expensive. they will cost you. they tell your soldiers instantly that some soldiers deserve respect and some don't. that set one servicemember against another, it forces people to take sides. you can teach respect all day

long and make one time of the month joke at the club. get guess which one is more powerful. instead, you want this to work? you want your unit to succeed? tell stories. i heard general millie talk about, general mark millie, the chief staff of the army talk about coming under fire in iraq. one vehicle blown by an ied and watching a young woman soldier 120 pounds soaking wet lifting a guy twice her size out of the vehicle. just a clean and jerk. he says adrenaline, strength, whatever. but if i had doubts before then there are women capable of more than we think they are capable of, he didn't afterwards. you have a story. it could be a woman at the gym last week who smoked you in crossfit area it could be a cadet from 30 years ago.

it could be a woman who surprised you down range. it could be a story you heard in class here. that troops will remember your story. so less preaching, more storytelling. you don't have to tell everyone the moral of the story, they will get it because you are not asking them to make allowances for the women. you are demanding that every soldier who serves under you gets his fair shake. standards and professionalism . it may be, it may not be easy but it's simple. thank you. >> all right, well thank you to our panelists for their comments on integration and the challenges and the opportunities that that presents us with so before we open it up to question-and-answer i want to remind everyone that we are still on live television. for those of you who have questions, wait for one of the mike runners, our interns

have mics. again, state your first name and your affiliation with c's or whatever organization. only one question per person please and of course our ceased students have this well-deserved reputation of always asking for whole and considered questions and i know they'll do the same thing today so any questions please? right here in the front? go ahead and stand up so i can get a bearing on you. >> hello. my name is major audie gonzalez, i'm an infantry officer in the 1999 graduate of west point. i have a couple of, not a couple of questions but one question. and it comes down to this. we understand this is going to happen and as an infantry leader, now let's execute. but how do we execute?

is itstandards , maintain standards? is it also when women show up to the unit which happened when iwas a battalion so , we integrated the second of the grade two id and the first femaleshowed up, everybody's fighting to get them in the unit . one of them in particular , when that happens to a unit it automatically validates what a lot of people are thinking so i think it's a two-way street. i remember when i went to west point, a female was trying to get into the citadel at the same time, the same thing happened. so as leaders, i think it's a two-way street but is it standards we need to maintain and also on the female side, do they need to come in knowing that they have to succeed. thank you. >> i will start but i'm pretty sure we are all going to say the same thing. it's standards. and you have to maintain those standards, hold them to those standards. women who did succeed and did

meet the standards are going to suffer if you don't hold the one who didn't meet the standards accountable. that's got to happen. and i know that there are going to be women who fail. we recognize that. but you can't let someone slide because that's going to hurt the women who succeed. do you want to add something? >> i'll jump in real quick and i think to speak to some of these things, it's not just holding it to standards but they arrive at the unit and this speaks to a cultural change that is starting to happen but needs to happen a little more especially from the marine corps side but it's holding them to standards from day one. and right now, leadership in the military is in a unique position thatthey have influence , that as an infantry officer and especially here in dc, you

have to hear some high-level people to say hey, were going to be integrating.were going to have these women showing up to your unit. we need them held to high standards from the data enter boot camp or recruit training for their first day at the academy or the first day in roxy and they need the opportunity not only to meet these high standards and to excel at these high standards but the training from day one to meet them. some of you know what we are talking about with studies and data that if you talk and look at the physicality aspect and i think the physicality standards are the ones that always gets brought up, well women don't run as fast, don't do as many pull-ups, they don't do as many setups, if you look at the actual training, one is if you give men and women from an early age, from the b,18-b,22 which is a critical point, the same tools to meet physical benchmarks, they will do with and especially

if you know this is where the benchmark is an early as the big thing, you give them tools they are able to do it. there's also the same studies that this leg affect of not expecting women and not giving them the tools from an early age to perform physically, it's really hard to make it up later and this is one that the marine corps study has been referenced a few times and one of the things that's finally come out in the larger report of it was that well, they tried to train up these women to the same physical standards to what one men would've received in three months and all you're going to do is break people and they're not going to meet the standard and then you end up with issues like the self-fulfilling prophecies of all, we don't think women will make it and they won't make it so in addition to the women that are coming into the standard which is only going to benefit those women who will need it, if being vocal about the fact that we need to always. standard from day one and they need the tools to meet

those high standards from day one and being a leader in a position where you are receiving women, that is needed and there's a lot of us who are reaching that over and over again but i think that the public is sort of. so, if those crazy women talking about again, what do they know? especially the mail contingent, it becomes very vocal about this and becomes very proactive in saying i need well-trained women coming to me cause this is happening. is going to have a big impact. >> that i make one comment on standards? everybody's talking about standards but i would roll this one back to you and say what are your infantry standards westmark are they clear? do we know what they are? we keep talking about women meeting standards but the truth of the last three years as we tried to revisit and figure out what are the standards so don't try to hold women to standards that we don't really know what they are and they are trying to reach or achieve a

nebulous, invisible standard so that's my first day. what are the standards and are they clear in the first place and is everybody having to meet them the same way so we all agree on standards and meeting standards are important but clear standards are more important and holding women to those standards in the same way that men are held is really critical. >> my hopes are for leaders today is that every state in accretion becoming formalized to make sure your jobs are easier because the answer absolutely is the same standards. i recall being part of the generation that needed women on the ground overseas and it puts ceos in an uncomfortable position because of the exclusion. i was a military police officer in falluja, two of my military assets were handled by females. they were tire flipping amazons and they could handle

themselves anywhere but it put a lot of units to which we attached assets in an uncomfortable position.do they want to take these females on patrol. i might not come back with that voice person and might be in violation so we had units that went out without exclusive working dogs because they weren't comfortable with the fact that they might have to use the female handler. i recall very personally and poignantly that when we needed, we were training the women to go work the ects but i had ceos that were uncomfortable with the women sleeping at ects and we would expose them to contact by convoy and then back and forth to the fob twice a day so you as leaders now have this great area for you and my hope is with one standard and fewer emotional?'s it

actually makes your job easier. >> good, other questions? i have one. i listen to many of the presentations and they had the same theme a little bit that is very similar to african-american integration, similarities with openly serving day servicemember integration and from those two perspectives, there was often a generational distinction that younger generations have no problem with fully integrating african-americans in 1948. younger servicemember had little problem with fully integrating openly serving gay service members. you see the same thing happening with women integration? is there a generational distinction or younger servicemembers are on board and it's more those that are in their 50, 20+ year of service that are or something else?

i'd like to make a quick comment on this. i don't think we are done with integrating african-americans . frankly, four days i think we still have a long ways to go on both counts and the notion that the younger don't have bias across the board is, that's simply not true. are they a little bit more open and accepting question mark maybe when they come in but leadership influences their attitudes over time and those senior leaders have a huge impact on those junior members joining the military so to me, it's got to start with senior leaders. certainly i would say the entry level are more pliable and more willing to accept whatever leadership tells them. >> i also think there's a difference. the thing about repealing don't ask, don't tell is that those folks were already in the unit. it was the person serving

next to you that you did not know was gay. so that's different from both examples of african-american integration and integrating women in combat. i think there is not so much, it's generational but not because of society. i think more generational because of experience area i think there's a difference. i see a difference in the senior officers today, i'm going to grab brag a little bit about my classy lady has a number of torstar, three and four star generals right now and even if they spent their career in the infantry, they spent four years training next to women. there are other services where we have senior generals who have never fired a weapon downrange next to a female marine. excuse me, a female servicemember or done a combat confidence course with a woman on their team. they didn't grow up with a woman next to them and i do

think that makes a difference in terms of leadership that yes, you would argue that if thiswas a really bad idea , when men who had more experience training with women would be more to it, then the men who had no experience . so just that fact that the men who had experience, the men in the mps who had fought next women who had been under fire downrange next to women are not saying women don't belong in these roles so that tells me something. i think the experience factor which does tie generationally because this has grown over time is really relevant in terms of acceptance. >> i think just to piggyback off that last comment, in the service that has been segregated the most from anywhere from where we train women initially to i think just a harder sort of delineation of combat roles for men versus noncombat roles for women, more than

generational i think it's socialization and i think why generally should really, the younger generation has come in and don't see this as a big deal is that socially they've been doing more with women from day one. and you can say along the same lines with don't ask, don't tell these were people that were already serving and with the repeal they were able to serve openly and it's a lot harder to come if somebody you deployed with multiple times that you have been in combat with, it's a lot harder to say well now that i know this is about you, you don't belong anymore. there's no way to also really hide the fact that you are a woman ever and even with, i agree that we still havea long way to go with african-american integration and not just african-americans but minority in general , integration and full

acceptance of don't ask don't tell, even in the case of african-americans it's a thing that if you look at, especially rhetorical studies of how groups are able to leverage their service to gain full recognition and you saw this as much with citizen right outside the military but even for integration, i fought this way, it was a lot harder to tell the world war ii era that it was necessarily a black soldier or white soldier fighting because they were doing the exact same thing. there has been much more even now qualification of women's jobs and women's roles and even in as a cobra pilot, there was i think i got both good and bad. good in that i got thrown into a deploying situation right away so it was very much about job performance. but whenever it would come back to garrison, there was a lot of qualification bills like, it was the female cobra

pilot who did this so maybe things were different, maybe standards were different so because you stand out a lot more i think even just the physical differences like you can tell, women tend to be built differently and look differently and there's this physical ability to stand out that i think has hindered some of the integrations in a way that racial and sexual orientation integration hasn't been hindered. >> thank you. other questions from the audience? in the back and to the front. doctor burnett there. then professor davidson. >> i'd associate professor in season. i'd like to extend this logic in a slightly different direction. i was very impressed with sue fulton's comments about how being a veteran makes us more powerful fighting force. i'm curious about your thoughts in terms of how this

makes us eight more powerful fighting force, maybe more dominating force in a comparative sense against our competitive nations who are likely to go up against, the russians and chinese in terms of how they are moving or not moving in this direction. >> the research as the least academic member of the panel, let me talk about research. the research about divers teams being stronger, one of the interesting things i saw was that homogeneous groups get lazy in their thinking because they assume that other people, the other people are going to agree with them and when you add people from whether it's racial differences or gender differences or other differences , they think,

they work harder because they feel like i need to defend my idea, my point of view. they work harder to prove themselves because there's not that same senseof all, these are my people in a sense . ideally, when you have a diverse group including gender diversity you're going to bring different strengths to the battle, you're all going to get smarter, you're all going to get better. there's going to be an aspect of proving yourself on both sides. that should make the unit perform better, should make the unit make better sis decisions as war fighting gets more complex and its not , i heard general cason say it used to be just about massive firepower on the enemy and now it's much more complex. you are making decisions down to the small unit on a regular basis about who the enemy combatant is andisn't . and more complex battlefields

so if you are making better decisions in the unit, if you have a broader diversity of skills in that unit, it should make you stronger and that hypothetical. but it seems to me that as we move forward, the smart leaders are going to say okay, what does she bring to the fight? realizing that chris diced was a brilliant leader but she made herself a great land navigator so they had her plotted points. could i have done that? yes but it turns out the best person for that particular job was a woman so that's the second piece is you are broadening the pool so you should be able to put the best person, the best job regardless and i think that's true whenever we take it another step forward. one of the things he said about don't ask, don't tell

us it's not about the quality, it's about readiness. it your best arabic linguist is gay, who cares? you need really good arabic linguists. is your best person for the job and we are going to have this discussion again, if your best person for the job is transgender, who cares what mark do the job. so i think in those respects we should expect this makes us stronger and that our enemies who are more invested in traditional ways of, these are the people who traditionally will fight in our infantry and those people are eligible, they're missing out on talents. that should put us ahead. any other thoughts? >> to take it to a higher level, little little more theoretically because sue touched on a lot of very good practical points but what it also brings in things

especially like the russian and chinese model where it's a very top-down directed military where you have essentially a military class, like you are all born in. it becomes a not just a profession or a citizen soldier type ideal but a class of people that do this job and you do whatever the leader tells you to do and he takes you to take the hill, you take the hill would expanding the force brings as well is it brings more citizen buy-in into what the military does. and yes, we need strategic planners and we need military professionals, who that is what they do for a living but part of being in a democracy is citizen buy-in, citizen response, this idea that the citizen soldier that both an enabling force. you can draw from a really diverse talent pool and the bigger that pool gets, the more you're going to guarantee you get the right person for the job but on the flipside of that, is that it's going to force military leaders and political leaders