we take a look and we first day is there a transaction specific harm. if there is, we try to find a narrowly tailored remedy and if that addresses was identified we tried to move forward with the public interest determination part one thing you saw them do was view mergers as a christmas tree where you can hang whatever regulatory agenda you wanted. that's not my approach and that's not the approach lawfully, under the medications act that the fcc should take. >> watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> we heard from political strategists on the impact of social media on campaigns and election. have these technologies added to the polarization in american politics? the form was hosted by the university of southern california in l.a. >> thank you. thank you for following through with this event. i see several people from the

school here in the audience. i hope you enjoy that and continue to participate in the event. we have an exciting panel today. let's get started with some questions. many of the questions were prepared in advance. let's start with questions about news in the current year. >> it's only been a year since the presidential election. it is hard to remember when fake -- facebook wasn't part of fake news. : no matter how bad it was for

their candidate or how bad it was it allowed them to assume it was coming from a biased point of view and therefore they ignored it it has not been typical of american campaigns >> have a slightly different view. we focus on the elections and it figures a letter that moore versus the cost and my background in psychology in a lot of the research that incentives of how people believe what they want to believe and really smart people have access to all the news they should know better believe what they want to believe. people will believe what they want to believe.

certainly social media with gasoline on the fire, but i don't think fake news is necessarily their problem, but an accelerant on the underlying problem which is division in this country. >> yeah, i largely agree with you. i mean, the trump phenomenon was because people were unhappy. it may have been exacerbated in fake news may have played a role in that, but i question the depths of the role through the spin they are talking about on facebook is a joke. you can't effect change with that kind of money. it is bothersome to us because they conceptually could affect our elections which is very holy to us but in terms of practical consequence, i don't think it did much for the election, but it could in the components of this fabric and in actual reality i just don't think it did much.

>> so many of the questions on fake news come from the way we are receiving this questionable quality and that's because there's been a change in the control of misinformation shifting from media companies with editors and editorial policies to tech companies that may not have the expertise on board. so some in congress want the government to regulate political lab and the way they are regulated, what is your thought process? >> well, the regulation on television is pretty minimal for the most part. and the creation of a disclaimer, and paid for by the campaign says they are paid for by bob for governor for kameny.

there's not much regulation. candidates in their ability to say what they want to see on television is pretty younger stick trade. i don't think it's asking a lot for online advertisers to have some commitment to disclosing while the absurd who paid for them. similar to what we do on television. the reality is we didn't get where we are to last week in the week before. they have evolved over time and they have a very key element of this is the airwaves, the broadcast airwaves are publicly owned and the federal communications commission regulates them and they put

together these requirements. obviously, i'm online communications is not federally regulated and i don't think there's any political will to federally regulate them nor should there be. so it is a real question of whether they are going to be self policing in terms of what they do or is congress going to step in and wasting that argument be joined in the last few weeks. >> it's tough for the government to regulate. for government to meaningful regulate, i work in attacking mr. intact to people. and does not acknowledge the responsibility not to do a better job.

they are surprised by things that have happened in the political world. in one direction or another but better in terms of something we all care about. i think there's a lot as liking it to nutrition. once upon a time we devolved to be really into sugar and really want to eat sugar and eventually we learned that too much sugar is bad for us and we have like find that tell us and we pay attention to negative information in computers groups and they can be healthy for us in a similar way. not just online. look at the 11:00 news. the seven things you don't know that might kill you if you don't watch the 11:00 news. it is sort of ingrained in us that these algorithms in the

media are optimizing towards human nature, that you know, just like with contrition, there are ways for us as a species to understand the kinds of things we are seeing are right for us and for smart people to do good things about that. people working on these algorithms so when it comes to regulation things will get better. >> i was extremely thoughtful and i'm not going to say anything remotely that thoughtful. i like the perspective that it makes common sense that there should be some degree of transparency, but when you did not out i don't think you'll have any practical effect because these expenditures on how fun skating is very difficult if not impossible. the point is you will not see a facebook ad or any ad with the disclaimer this was purchased by the russian government yet it's

going to go through a lot of hand before it gets there. i would defer to you if you feel differently because you actually replaced the things. i think it's extremely challenging to figure out who's paid back. the transparency just isn't fair. the >> the impact particularly on independent expenditure ads of disclaimers is grossly exaggerated by most of the campaign reformers because oftentimes they say paid for by the committee for a better world and who's against a better world obviously. but on the other hand, it does lead a paper trail you can follow to figure out who is behind the money. now, in particularly the issue involved with the russian comments somebody comes up to you and says they want to have you do there: it pays you in rubles, you'll probably say this is not a very good idea.

>> well come >> well, they would just pay cash. >> are absolutely right. >> ravi, and enjoyed your analogy about sugar and maybe you mention diabetes,. maybe when we create something when the technology will create something like refined sugar, it is exciting, but there are consequences like a public health problem of diabetes and that's a technology developer myself, our community has sensed the pace of development is increasing. and so, the opportunity to regulate behaviors for this consequences become shorter and shorter. i wanted to ask bill and justin, in your line of work, have you noticed an acceleration or just par for the course the way technology is changing both opinion research and political

messaging? >> well, the most profound impact of technology on the political process so far has been the huge acceleration of fundraising opportunities from small donors, president obama's campaign was funded primarily by small donors particularly in 08 and i think we saw that with bernie sanders this time. so, we are talking about ads, but the most profound impacts have been the fund raising, the change in the fundraising culture in that part of digital communications and digital political communications is far advanced beyond were advertising this right now in terms to the digital world still to get 15% of advertising dollars either commercially or politically.

so there's questions about where it's going to go and of course, all of these things change. there's going to be other digital breakthroughs in different ways to communicate. i have a firm view that what we do in the communications world is we don't get rid of old media. and new media top of it. and in the advertising stock. we are still advertising on cable in terms of people still advertising on broadcast radio and then we have all of these new mediums including online and satellite in all these other things and i am sure we can see

a significant political role over time. so you know, just an enormous fragmentation going on in their communication and people are not only self-select team as we talk about, also self-selecting where they get their news and we know people who are watching fox television and msnbc. we'll see the same phenomenon on podcast and people who listen to progressive podcast and conservative podcasts exclusively. that is the big change as people become so ideologically driven about where they get information from. >> yeah, the media looks at those describing it evolves over

time, but it hasn't clicked because people consume information in the ways they like to consume them in multiple different ways. digital dozen on the world right now because people consume information in a variety of ways and those media markets, tv is an incredibly efficient way to spend money. in my small world, the researchers figuring out what people think and try and how to influence their thoughts and behaviors. digital has had a profound impact if you're talking about a highly informed horse race and there's really only one of the presidential race, google survey is fantastic, remarkable, and believable. anything under that its efficacy. there are folks who are proselytizing a particular tool or method because they get enamored with any kind of

industry and they forget sometimes there is a right for any application and it's not one-size-fits-all. in my world there is a move right now to transition from telephone research, which if you perform in the right way can still be integrating online research, which can be incredibly useful for the right approach, but there are pitfalls with it. they come in california. and 50%, and if you say arbitrarily 50% of the funds found include cell phones and i'll have 50% of it online and 50% of their sample to new registrants, which composes a fraction of the electorate premises gone ahead gone ahead and put an artificial constraint and there's good reason to look at that and say that methodology is flawed.

it may hit the market time to time, but it is not much more different in that particular purpose. on the other hand if you are researching a small california coastal town on the ballot measure and there's 10,000 voters in that space, you can slice and dice methodology and just make sure you're careful about proportions and get much better realities and how your readers respond that normally and that can be regarded as statistically significant because it just doesn't work that way, but it's directional and the rest of the world when i work on consumer base stuff, which from someone selling toothpaste or technology i can't use the voter fraud list, but i have to use some construct the data. people forget it sounds really cool. it's just a workaround. it gets better and better, but nowhere near as his as we have in this policy.

anyway, diversion bear. >> so back to companies and media companies are just google, facebook and twitter are making the case they are not media companies and should be taken a hands-off role in other platforms and outweigh the consequences and might want to deal with bad actors to manipulate. broad question. >> that is a very complex problem for a long time. i think that there is a difference between what the hearings did on facebook talking about russian collusion and i totally agree the impact was not that great on this election, but the potential impact in some

future election continues to grow as rapidly as it's grown in the last 20 years. how the industry itself deals with these issues is going to be really difficult for them. to the extent the industry can have an ideology is more anti-regularity than other industries they will resist any regulation and congress balked, particularly it's amazing how interest doing congress can get into issues about elections than they have a little bit of self-interest in how elections are conducted, so their aggressiveness on this issue will be pretty expensive.

they will want to see some clean up your act kind of dynamic, but i think there will be resistance. we're a long way from figuring this out, too. >> i think i've heard he said this. i think it's almost impossible for government to effectively regulate these technologies. i'll give you a helpful thing, which is bad also something useful for your engineering season today, i think there is a movement towards the idea you don't have to measure just clicks for time on the site or ad impressions, which is what a lot of these sites are designed. there are other things you can measure. products out there on some of these media companies that try to sense when you are in danger

of hurting yourself and try to help you with that. there are things that are trying to measure things a little more human and closer to the goal and i reminded by something like if you ever get ana i have problems like stop all human suffering, and easiest way to stop all human suffering is to kill other human beings. so sometimes they're unintended consequences of the goals we set for these algorithms and i think we are realizing there are consequences. there are interesting ways to think about how can i measure measuring things like fulfillment, happiness, you know, they are constructs, but if you can measure whether something is or is not a cap you can measure these constructs as well. >> speaking carefully, there is

a challenge within the hubris and they tend to breed their own exhaust a little bit too much and be the worst corporate act bears in america. one example, the way that they approach growth was to ignore the law. we live under a construct of laws and we have to respond to them that car company in every city that they rolled out to be simply ignored it. rather than working with some degree, and in they didn't. if you can imagine an oil company or tobacco company behaving in a way of many technology companies behave i

don't think there is an appetite to celebrate. >> the companies you are alluding to include tech companies and also to my preferred -- i don't know so, do you see as bad a problem, many are not -- more than others to maintain tension or loyalty to the media source, which seems like it's not in line necessarily with the values that

the benefit. >> eventually the thing that people value and companies value converge. so i guess coming up, ultimately for example some of these platforms are paid by advertisers on the platform. a lot of them are brand advertisers. they want to be associated with things that provide value. there is a huge effort right now around her and safety for example where brands are removing their ads from places that they feel are harming their consumers. and so, that is in some ways a response to everyday consumers who were tweeting today's brand, look, you were on this really offensive plays.

the world doesn't get there like right away, but eventually things converge towards the things that people value are the things that businesses optimize towards and there will be inefficiencies along the way that will be terrible and terrible consequences, but i think business as a whole will eventually get to the point where they are trying to serve some of these larger goals. some of these companies right now. >> i would say there is a comparison here historically between television and online and it's back to the issue of how you evaluate how many people are watching an ad. television adopted a universal method that was monopoly by the nielsen company that has become

a standard measurement in the television industry. i mean, there have been arguments over various rating methodology changes and it hasn't been all happiness in sweetness, but mostly it's been universally accepted as standard measurement. online, nobody can figure out who they are talking to. it's just reality. there was an experiment that procter & gamble, which will be the largest consumer company in the world did over the summer, where basically their argument based on a study done by advertising agencies in the united kingdom is that we really didn't know who we were talking to and although the things we know are big problems. and what his impressions mean and what are we getting forward and whatnot. this study came across the

atlantic. procter & gamble takes a look at it and they decided to experiment. for one quarter, they dropped all of their online advertising, which has been 20% of their budget advertising. and to see what impact it would have on their sales. what they uncovered was it had zero impact on their sales. absolutely zero. they tried to figure out okay, what the media most influences people at the point of purchase? they found a slightly over 50% said television and then in the teens were radio and unbelievably enough print in high single digits was online. we are still in the infancy of this industry as another testing

platform, not spl experience everyday getting online and doing all the things we do, communicating with each other, getting information online than what not, but as an advertising platform where is dylan the infancy. we take quite measure what we are getting for our bucks. on the other hand, we can't stay away from it and as we talk about it, there are situations where california is the biggest state and also two of the top 10 in the top 25 sacramento, another one like 26, san diego. and then we have this political setup for the whole state votes

for everybody so it gets very expensive here. online gives people an option to do something other than mail people things so everybody finds it very is and i think the political community, they are just not sure >> related to tack on another online allows you to do is targeting. unlike tv ads and can't respond to information the ads. how this change campaign going forward? >> that is one of the advances

obviously targeting one of the limitations. it limits the number of people you are communicating with. you can do wonderful things online with the ballot measure last november with a whole of a lot of money on texting with millennial speakers they don't really watch and there will be universal and media platform and people will talk to large numbers of voters online. >> i see lots of people using targeting to really impress the effect. a lot of the companies micro-targeting, you know, think about entertainment historically

marketed to young men coming young women, older men, older women, we all know that our entertainment preferences to market "game of thrones". it seems very obvious, they been able to do those very obvious things is really helpful. the key is some way to make it seem some days it will be seen as more of a service and less like intrusion. i get asked that i can really genuinely happy to see and that i'm not. >> speaking to the targeting thing it can be really useful in there is a change in that kind of blackbox, digital spend and largely still is evaluated like a government program, how much money did you spend on it as

opposed to what he did actually go to in tracking the folks that actually saw it in terms is hard. there are companies that are either being purchased by two trackbacks band and then you have the incredible not only targeting by demographic, but also digested information, but that is the missing link in a came online in the last couple years and is getting more and more prevalent throughout markets. it's incredibly useful for me because i can do add testings is perfectly aligned to this. it takes a little bit of time, but i can figure out with different concepts and who is most effective with. in my world it's becoming more and more useful.

>> typically when there is messaging from one campaign there may not be a chance for opponents to respond. is this something likely and you find this problematic? >> i agree totally. i think once you are out there in the world, people are going to find out outside of the targeted universe. extraordinarily controversial things to one audience, if you don't get caught it will be a minor miracle. >> final prepared question. 2018 is around the corner we don't yet have solid evidence to fake news and are successful.

what is the outlook and how will it be for 2016 and what facebook google searches make better decisions or will it be worse? >> we had an election last week and virginia was contested, new jersey not so much. people didn't come away and say fakeness had some profound impact on the election. they talk about what the two candidates were saying, how they were advertising, how they were organizing and forced more than it was who showed up in how they voted and all the things does that tells us what happened after what happened after-the-fact. i thought it was interesting that we did not see a huge fake

news dynamic at least in virginia. >> i'll say i think it's going to get worse. it's going to probably get worse for a little while and it's not because of the platforms are going to try to get better and largely the same and make improvements around the edges, but what is changing as we are that much more polarized than we were five years ago. if you look at measures of political polarization, they were all getting worse and worse and very alive in ways. it is a faction of the partisanship we see are willing to believe things in alabama right now in the kinds of games people are saying about what is true and what is not true and

the beliefs about what is true and what is not true is obviously a lot of motivated reason going on and is not just limited to people in alabama. there is research about how really smart people, the smarter you are, the better you are justifying the things you want to believe in is the intelligence to find out a way to believe what you want. things are going to get worse until the hope is they were also people in conversations like this who are trying to not be so polarized to make things better >> the only thing twitter and facebook create and allow people to self identify the circle would want to be around and not language in talking chatter continues and continues and honestly political circles is

highly charged, and that has become exacerbated by the algorithms. if you raise your hand and say i'm interested in that, you click on something with a message and you will get more and more and in the hamster is getting fed more and more of whatever drug will eventually kill it. people give are frustrated that. i think that's a real problem. it panders to human behavior. i don't think it's the end of the world. i think you had a point earlier about companies at some point they self correct. people do too. that's why companies self correct. somewhere in there the intensity hopefully we'll kind of go down but i think next year will probably be crazy. >> actually, the larger point that this is a reflection of the

larger political polarization, but this is not great in the larger political polarization then you go back, nixon was bashing the media long before there was any thing -- and the online world or anything else. he was bashing dan rather daily. so there's been an element of this in our politics for a long time. it's just tightened a little bit and you can find your own world to talk to. you don't have to talk to the rest of the world. that is somewhat of a new phenomenon or >> i think i was a little bit answering a question about fake news. fake news is a sense of polarization, so i don't think the platforms are necessarily exacerbating fake news, but to your point, totally agree the platforms are exacerbating polarization in some ways and

not as again somewhat a reflection of a study out that human beings are three times more likely to click on things that are negatively framed and positively framed. that is what stops us from getting killed in our ancestors are getting killed. you don't pay attention to something dangerous. you don't pay sun to do some positive signal you don't miss out on much. pay attention and negative things and therefore algorithms optimized towards engagements optimized with negative things and everyone learns that's a problem that's definitely leading to the polarization. that is the problem more so because a lot of the research is about how people are social and emotional first and rational section. we always leave but we want a blue so we have to work on the polarization label less than the

rational what is the information. >> you mentioned alabama. that is really an interesting case study and now you have a political universe that is extremely conservative and extremely conservative candidate is now being accused of horrendous acts and on the news we are listening to how the community that supports judge moore is trying to figure out how to rationalize this in a way that they can continue to vote for and it's almost painful to listen to because the truth is they shouldn't vote for them. but they don't want to go there, so let's blame the "washington post" instead of ourselves. >> positive dissonance is one of the most painful things you can

live with in life. think about it like the most painful things you can think of. your son or daughter is accused of murder. your favorite sport team, the star quarterback is accused of sexual assault. the person you admire most, if it were someone you didn't care about, it wouldn't matter. if the cognitive dissonance, the thing i want and the distance between what i want and what i believe in another sphere that is painful just even to watch. >> with the manager of your favorite team pitches the wrong guy and a seventh game of the world series and it doesn't turn out well? >> ready rapidly on not. full support for them. >> i don't see that cognitive

dissonance thing continuing for much longer. there is. where everyone tries to figure out what people are surprised that on my face and her dad. but it takes a little while. or maybe there is an explanation and it's pretty evident pretty quickly but she's got a real problem. >> you have to resolve it. cognitive dissonance i'm a conservative in alabama. i want to vote for a conservative senator. this man has been accused of assaulting teenage girls. like something has to give. you cannot sit there with those two statements forever. you have to either believe that it's a war you have to stop supporting him and you have to resolve it havasu people do all the time. they believe something is fake

news or they stop supporting a candidate. >> where they have a third choice which is they don't participate. which may be the outcome. >> we have a time for audience questions. anyone? okay, get a microphone here. coming to you. >> i have a question about if there will ever be a media source that the majority of the population believes they can to the extent that people believe tv news tickets through in the 60s and 70s with dan rather,

will forever be a figure like that on national television again or any form or the majority 70, 80, 90% of the population believes them? the >> well, the first answer to that is it's going to be difficult because there's an enormous amount of media fragmentation. the 50s, 60s through much of the 70s into the 80s you had three networks that were dominant and you had three choices and that was it gives some people like cronkite. some like brinkley. not a lot of people like abc. nbc and cbs were dominant. now you have so many media outlets that people have a lot more choices than some of them are ideological choices. some of them are stylistic. ted turner started cnn.

people laughed about it, thought it was the craziest idea. an all-new station on cable turned out to be a precursor, so i think it tough because of the media fragmentation. >> i will venture that gas burning some analyses coming firm brinker and we do let the people vote on things, favorite movies and tv shows with the red states and blue states end quote the analysis shows was a lot of agreement then then then then then then young people and old people than against americans and people across the world. largely, there is agreement that partisanship. we all agreed clayton kershaw is a good krispy kreme makes donuts

that are good for me, but not good for me. there are things human beings agree on. it's when they become controversial in part of this person should did it all breaks down. sometimes we overplayed the number of things that are part of this partisanship and there may be coming time when you see this when war happens, when people rally around the flag and we stop thinking of ourselves as a bad state and blue states americans and we think of ourselves more holistically. there will come a time when partisanship is not good news is about and therefore will revert to the things most of us agree upon is that there will be more agreement. the >> the sheer volume of outlets is definitely a problem if you

are right you can divide it into the pre-fox and post fox when news became ideologically charged on both sides and people are tuning in for that entertainment, worse part is that you had all the centrist, so those personalities were turned to present the reason and those might be analysis of both sides of the issues, but you weren't turning into hear yourself think, which we do largely now. i don't know if we have an appetite to go back. it's entertainment now. it's not really news. >> rephrasing what he was seen as part of the response, it seems to be not so much on actual opinions as unexpressed

partisanship has been caught in psychology and political science literature to your party affiliation of a common important part of who you are, do you see in consulting with facebook and they said we see we've gotten a bunch of trouble with initiatives to think you could suggest that might help people overcome this high-risk partisanship. >> we're doing some research and one thing i just alluded to, the idea that there's something in psychology called extend contact theory, the idea that if i watch my team get into a fight on the field with members of the other team, now i want to fight with fans of the other team. watching people in your group fight with people of the other group makes you want to feed with -- favorite people at the other group.

we don't watch -- there's a lot of bipartisan bills, but because it negativity, there some bipartisan bills that don't get attention as and that's one thing i hope to do this research ride and it shows what i think it will show because that's kind of a basic psychology finding, you know, watching people fight all the time makes you want a fight. you can publish stories all you want about people finding across the aisle, but you should realize the impact you are having on the elect are at and you have the opportunity makes you want to get along. and it makes things better if you want to.

the partisan was between the parties. now they have severe polarization within the parties. the never trump verizon the site does seem to be getting over very fast and we see and the others on the other side you don't seem to be getting over the campaign very fast and even the hillary people don't seem to be getting over the campaign very fast. we know how polarization within both parties and i think that is pretty and predict bull where that ends up. >> we have time for one last question. right here.

[inaudible] -- i set up so you click on one of ideological message in the start to feed you similar ideological messages, whatever platform you are on, facebook or just google. in terms of extreme partisanship , would there be an advantage to kind of work in an manner so when you have people who are in a strict news diet of either side, then maybe exposure to add to the opposing ideological party might help them at least be more receptive or at least open up the line for debate so that partisanship doesn't necessarily get in the way of good policy or good public policy, liquid images which you see? >> i only asked who was going to pay for it.

it's a nice idea but they are a company and selling space. the reason the algorithm works is because it's the same marketing approach that is i went online and in looking for a pair of pants and suddenly i get all these different things about pants. it's a simple algorithm theoretically. i love your idea, but someone has to pay the tab. >> there is a precedent for that algorithm to be built. it is worked on because there is -- it can't be optimized because eventually it will drive away users and ultimately the platforms are useful as far as users. certainly precedent for giving up some of that attention and giving up some of the engagement and service of something that

looks a little closer. not necessarily the ultimate variable that's maybe a less bad variable they are optimizing towards. the only thing i would add to what you said about showing people the information is i would just tweet that a little bit. people are not affected so much by the information. they are affected by human connection so rather than showing them if i want to affect people's attitudes on gay marriage, i don't talk to them about marriage law, the history of marriage. i showed them gay people who are relatively normal. if you want to affect people's attitudes, think about that. some of them that something more

rational. >> we are coming to the end of this program. i would like to thank the panel that i would like to thank you for the terrific job of moderating. i think this is illuminating and really fascinating and we should come back and do it again and we'll do more and more of this and as we go on. most of all, they could thank you for students at usc. you've been active, participated , you ask great questions and you have the true effects of mustard. thanks, everybody. have a good exam. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

steve knight do you have faith in the independent the doj authorities and kind of how you see that overall in a pretty big situation to be unfolding right now? >> my general view is the fcc has a limited role to play in mergers, which is to say when a transaction comes before us, we take a look and say his third transaction specific harm? and if there is can we try to find a narrowly tailored remedy and if that addresses the harm we identified, we can move forward the public interest determination. one thing you saw over the last couple years with new mergers as sort of a christmas tree where

you can hang whatever regulatory agenda you wanted on it. that's not my approach and not the approach lawfully under the communications act the fcc should take. >> at the white house, holiday decorations are at university, melania iyer did a video showing some of the displays. these >> these

>> these >> live coverage continues on c-span2 at 30:00 p.m. with the white house briefing. spokeswoman sara sanders will answer questions about tax reform and the presidents visit to capitol hill tomorrow as well as a number of other issues. congress back from thanksgiving recess. senators meet with a couple of votes on traditional entrées nominations and the rest the week focuses on tax reform. the house returns for legislative business tomorrow on

wednesday they will consider a resolution requiring anti-harassment and discrimination training for all house members and staff. watch the house light on c-span in the senate life appear on c-span2. >> the number one issue facing the industry continues to be slow recovery. we had an historic vote in 2016 in my district is heavily impacted. my citizens in my district right now are forced to do with issues regarding fda amounts for the federal government considers those to be a duplicate and right now we are having trouble getting the necessary dollars to recover because with our program they have to deduct the amount

they received through the sba loans. right now her recovery has been stalled because of the issue. we are working with our congressional delegation, but again the issue in our community. >> the most important state issue to me coaster restoration. our coastline is eroding. we are losing a football field and i would like for a state to focus on restoring and replenishing our coastline. so future generations can see it. >> i think the most pressing issue that we face in one that we are already working on and how does that's the conclusion this last year has been our fiscal budget situation here in louisiana. not uncommon to a lot of other states. i think ours is a little unique that what we face in 20 games is to roll off of some temporary

revenue on the fact that it will expire in june of 2018. so the ability to find the solutions for that both on the revenue side and the expense either what we will be working on. we have to be coming up with solutions in 2018. >> former veterans department undersecretary from the obama administration shares lessons learned in creating change and complex health systems. use our senior medical director at johns hopkins and spoke at the university of florida's bob graham center for public service. this is about an hour. >> good evening, everybody. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce dr. hee