financial accounts. our guest on afterwards. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. good evening everyone. i am tracy diamond. thank you for joining us at the maryland state library and welcome. please take a copy to learn about it. and you can also check out the website.

to learn more about what's going on. with the new streaming service that we had launched. and you can use canopies that is the name of the service to watch oscar award films. it's pretty incredible. so tonight we will talk about the book and then have a q&a. the elizabeth where professor of communications at the school for communication at the university of pennsylvania is also the director of the pug -- public policy center.

we will hear them talk about cyber war. what we don't, can't in do know. she and her colleagues isolated significant communication and the 2000 and 2008 presidential campaign. they explain how by changing the behavior of key players and ultimately the focus the content of mainstream news they reshaped the 2016 electoral dynamic. it sure to be a very interesting conversation please give a warm welcome. >> thank you for coming out on a bitterly cold evening. this is a genuinely depressing topic.

let me start with the predicate that the 2016 was an unusual year. i don't expect you to dispute that idea but let me tell you why from a communication standpoint that it was an unusual year. when we study communication and politics we pretty much can say that by the convention you know who is likely to win the election. and you can do that because you have enough people who are tied to political party if they like the candidate of their party. they're highly likely to vote for them. it's pretty likely that the person who has the largest party identification and is the most popular is likely to win the election. there are years that are exceptions however. that is not the only reason the 2016 is a unique year. there were conditions that made communication more likely to have an effect on votes rather than less likely. very high levels of absentee

ballots. it occurs during a time in which you have very high levels of media coverage and you have high amounts of russian control activity in cyberspace. >> there would not be enough voters there to persuade but since you have absentee balloting unit was tied to a very high level of undecided voting it means that anything that comes into the communication environment in the last month or so has a greater chance of being able to change the vote than it would if we were all voting on election day in those things were happening a month earlier. it's a combination of high levels of absentee bout battling. as we are closing into the last week of the election. it's almost one has almost one in eight. there are other factors on average about nine out of ten

democrats that means if you say you are a democrat juergen a vote for a democrat candidate. about nine out of ten of the republicans. in 2016 we have a higher than average number of people who said i am neither one of those. i am an independent. those people are more likely to be persuaded because they are less tied down by a party. i knew of one other factor. and it is the factor that i don't expect anybody to expect as controversial. there just wasn't a great deal of affection for either of those two major nominees. a lot of people when they have their vote in hand they were kind of holding their nose even as they cast their vote. it was a more difficult vote to cast. you might decide to stay home. it might be hyder --dash mike carter to get you out to

vote. we have higher than average numbers of undecided. during this whole last month we have absentee balloting. something major happens. they have that ballot and hand the communication stimulus can create an effect. so in this context the question is did the russian intervention into enough to change that and keep three states -- three key states. they're all sorts of other factors of course that are a up late in the election. it's easy to say i know why the outcome occurred the way it did. it was something hillary clinton did. or something donald trump did that people really liked. i need to set up a situation in which we specify all of that is going to happen and it's all baked in. as i get a change. if you held all of those things constant everything

that was good or bad any of the candidates did you just assumed they were going to happen anyway. they're just gonna sit there. is there enough difference to push 70,000 votes in one direction or another. it's not a very big number. what i can't say is all of these other factors might not had played in the election. they got us to where we were was 70,000 votes were still at issue. what pushed those votes if anything and it wasn't the russians. i'm i can to make a case conclusively that the russians did it. i'm going to make the case that i think there is a pretty strong argument that they may have. i will make a case for probability not for certainty. and that is the reason for asking the question the way i have. i've asked the question how did they help elect a

president because all of the factors are there. and there is no evidence at least not in the public domain that the russians directly intervened by actually changing votes. they did get access to registration systems. from our national security folks they did not actually change ballots. you can't say they elected. did they tip the balance in order to move the 78,000 votes. and that is the question i'm going to ask. as the author of early and other books. i don't usually had new experiences usually my life is pretty predictable. i teach, i research and i have great family. i am grateful on any given date that i wake up feeling healthy and can walk because i've have a couple of back surgeries. i don't expect to be surprised by anything. i was surprised by this.

[inaudible conversations] we've had those things. they persuade them. for the right state. [indiscernible] >> how many of you know what rt is. it was called russia today once.

into those who are in the social media sphere means retweet. when you go into your hotel room or go into your cable system at home. you will find a number of places. this is the kremlin talking to you. formally cnn. there are people that watch rt that hasn't realize that. it's actually an outlet that was once called the russia today. that for me is a brand-new experience. i didn't exactly get my argument right. i was thrilled. to set up the argument i was gonna try to make. i like to show you another clip.

when they change the election results. these are big one. >> you have to believe in unicorns to go there. the fact is, the allegations that the russians may have hacked into the dnc computers there is no evidence whatsoever that they have any impact on the election. >> do unicorns exist. and we head at the russians. absolutely categorically did it. what did the trolls. in the people that were pretending to be u.s. nationals. what did they do. they would probably get us into this realm of certainty.

more certainty because we know they changed the media agenda. they may have done it inconsequential ways. we have a pretty strong theory that says when you change a media agenda. that can influence votes. when you create imbalances so there is now more negative messaging about one candidate that's wreak at the communication effect. they advertise message, speak and talk to those are roughly equal in the composition. and they pretty much balance each other out.

they are getting more negative information into the media stream about hillary clinton. the trolls do the did the same thing. that's where you would expect to shift votes. and then unicorns here absolute certainty. if a russian disinformation influenced james comey decision to make public the analysis on the laptop. if they played a role in that decision to make it public. it was leaked almost immediately. as you would've anticipated it

would of been. then the case becomes more certain because the effects in the election when those nine days change the media agenda are pretty clear in the polling data. shift. hillary clinton and her lead at that point. attributable as best one can tell. in the coverage of the coming investigation. pause for a moment and say if kathleen is can make an argument that this could create an effect any number of combinations of those things that would increase the likelihood that there was an effect. this is not an argument that says this alone there is enough there that it becomes

more plausible if the theory of communication is found. that is argument that i'm in a make. it became a rolling cross-section. and then saying we know that the five days this is basically where the public was. we have a ramble -- random sample every single day. we could watch day-to-day changes. it was a largest survey ever run up until that time. and is an election in which one candidate.

we did not have the social media yet. being able to say that. when advertising is been used in a campaign. it's over here in the battleground. we could actually see what happens when you had advertising in there was one more advantage the 2000 handed us. in the last week of the campaign you have the breaking news that there was a dui back in george bushes record. that was an error in which we have major broadcast network. al gore took advantage of every one of those weekday nights.

in those environments he was hammered by al gore on the social security issue. or his personal savings account. give a message in balance. less so for bush. here is a third thing that we have. he ran out of money and at the end of that campaign. he was under spending bush and as a result again we get to look at the effect of message imbalances. we drew the conclusion that what shifted the votes on the margin and helped him nationally was the different

difference in messaging and news. it was in balance and advertising. that was one of the reasons when we came into the 2008 campaign. we were looking at specific messages in advertising when a candidate obama outspent him. could we see that message pushed up. we actually matched up the voting data. social media is not yet a big factor. and were able to have that as the amount of obama messaging to go up. that is the backdrop for saint

saying when you see that imbalances in 2016. where there imbalances in a situation in which we assume all of the other things that were to happen work in a change. and was that imbalance created by the russians. they have a sound theory of the election. they change it in ways that created message imbalances in change in the case of news the kinds of things that people were focused on because of another finding here. when something becomes more important to you you are more likely to use it in assessing candidates. those things are put in place in part by forms of communication.

i will argue that the theory is found. they magnified fears of cultural change. and they tried to shift young liberal supporters. summit and st. petersburg go and figure it out. it was actually the genesis of this book. social media platforms i start

out by saying look at the evidence and see but i was really doubtful until i looked for the ads. i found out that they have a theory of what donald trump needed it was really like to really sound. if donald trump could not mobilize them. at least roughly to the romney level with the electoral college or the vote. it's way below where it needs to be with both of the constituencies. and try to swing them against hillary clinton. if you wanted to hit -- hurt hillary clinton.

she needs to get somewhere in that range. and then you would want to demobilize. there is a move to shift. it was pretty savvy. or the potential liabilities that needed to activate. they also were tied into the

trump message structures. it was a way that was very consistent. they are largely not putting new messages into play through the trolls. they are taking existing messages that are already in the conservative and more right ring -- right wing. and they are doing it in ways that are consistent with what donald trump is saying. they also targeted voters that they needed to target. here is some survey data about a dominant situate see. as i tell my students you can read more rapidly than i speak. >> those who believe that they need protection. they are more likely to favor trump. it has gotten worse since the 50s. they are in danger of losing the identity. the growing number of immigrants threatens the country. or that it's where that is

become just as problematic. he did not create these attitudes. the question is did he harness them. and the answer is yes. we are more likely to support donald trump than hillary clinton. if the trolls are coming in with the messages consistent with this. they are being consistent with his electoral needs to reach these voters. through the cultural change. now i know i am not reading this out loud.

social media environment we are highly likely to be talking with people who are like us. not all of us but most of us. they don't necessarily live anywhere near each other. it becomes an area in which people are likely to really relay things to each other. they are more likely to share with other people who are just outside that sphere. by talking to them. getting materials online does not just influence the people.

we move very quickly. a lot of people already like it. you are more likely to think that you like and share it. and you're in your quicker to share the material. what happens in an environment where somebody takes bots -- bots. and creates the illusion that a lot of people like this. those are actually humans liking. and they are creating a sense that this is now normative. something that everybody accepts. what you are subduing essentially is creating an environment that is a right. and that is self reinforcing in that can in the process increases the likeliness of those just outside the immediate social circles. and that is my theory.

in the past when we've have something in print it took time to read it in print. and then it took time to share it with someone else. it doesn't mean you didn't share it. it did not have a quick visceral movement that has a right now. you can say that they would agree that this is a really great content. this is of this kind of social structure around the share. you get a persuasive power and you get with some. and now let me talk about those voters. to the extent that you like this you probably like this kind of content.

and now there is a look-alike function to see what other people like you are. that i'm can make the argument. built into the social media structure are those ways to reach people i did not require any coronation. and then look use a look-alike function.

you don't need insider information of what needs which voters. they spend more time telling us things that are useless to voters. then they do just about anything else. and what we showed in a book called spiral cynicism. that it activates cynicism and learning. it means if you can read english and you are in st. petersburg you have a guidebook for who you have to reach.

they probably did figure out how they were going to pass that through. there was no need for any coordination in order to accomplish everything that i am showing you here. it just means you didn't have to have it -- have in order to see it as a pattern. now were going to start moving clear issue identification. mobilizing veterans this is taking a statement by hillary

clinton out of context. this is an ad that is erred by an independent extended expenditure. cut, what's the problem. here an actress. make america number one.

>> their tweet was this. there is a synergy that takes existing content and then amplifies it out. see under supporters. he obviously didn't say that. i find stein up all of these pieces most interesting.

once you look back is become more obvious i would've expected that they would've tried to mobilize people and shift them over to try to get the libertarians. here is an appeal. the only way to take our country back as to stop is to stop voting for the corporations and banks. that is interesting. if you think about the picture you have seen of michael flynn you will see jill stein was at the same dinner. suddenly it all makes sense. there is some logic behind the

move. if you take the baseline vote for jill stein and this is convenient because she was the canon of the party for years before. the of the same candidate. the base level of support. and you look at the difference between that two out of those. the difference alone would have been enough to shift those states. i have not seen it. if you could please share it with me it's really interesting. where did the mobilization come from.

whether they are targeting and it's precise enough. they had access to the voter playbook. it is a more tentative argument. they affected the democrats around the national convention. what they were doing at that point was putting out information that sanders supporters should not stay with the democratic ticket. the effect that the agenda has throughout the month of october. and then the effect of the agenda i would argue but not through the hacked content but through the illusion of having hacked content if the influence that decision. the first effect.

the hacked content. it is released. and debbie wasserman schultz resigned. the contract from democratic operatives. and that can't be helping as hillary clinton tries to consolidate that base. two just simply walk out at one point. there is a second trap at that point. it was a really important day.

grab them by. the excess hollywood tape breaks on monday. the first news event. along with homeland security. that says that they were behind the hacking. that is major news. you would say that is going to be above the fold. in the question would be how do you know that the intelligence community after all you do work for barack obama. can we really trust this. >> we would have that as a debate. why would they want to hurt hillary clinton. now you've got an invite an event that would take a campaign.

very serious allegations. what it took to end the candidate. within an hour of the time. and this is the one with the mueller investigation. at least two parts of it have said the russians did the hacking. >> news story to the have excess hollywood, what's more irresistible. in three, they had hacked content and what has been hacked in released as segments of speeches that they wanted to see all through the primaries. the inherent newsworthiness

assuming they really are hacked segments and they are accurately representing what hillary clinton said. they are not entire speeches. what would you guess the news media would do. i would've guessed that they take story one move it over into story three and say the russians hacked content and has just been released in the form of speech excerpts and they look like this. so print news covered it. by the time we get to funding it is gone. and for the rest of the campaign the press is going to treat it as we can leak content. i want you to think for a moment what the implications are. some in this room probably approve up. it's not what they wanted to see.

and when you say wikileaks people don't hear russians as a result. and what they also don't see. hillary clinton wanted him prosecuted for what she considered the misuse of national security data. he would think the press would be same. we would interpret the content differently if we kept it tied to the source. some people might say i like jillian sans. they might be more appropriate of the content. what is there interest in this. in should do some of this and be discounted on those grounds because there there's nothing

comparable. this is not like press leaking. this is asymmetric. it's happening only on one side. with the access hollywood tapes. it effectively did this weekend. inside the trump campaign there was active consideration of moving pants to the top of the ticket it was that serious. so what helps warrant that. the hacked content. in the counter balance. it looks like this.

we will assess the damage with trump giuliani. we will talk to the campaign manager. about how they will handle the fallout. >> intelligence community said that they did the hacking. russians are the origin through both. we know it plays some role. imagine that piece in the narrative. the hacked content is not dropped within an hour of the excess hollywood tapes.

coming into sunday of the debate. two anti- trump the stories. instead, the first drops. what use was made of the content. there is now a counterbalance narrative. and as opposed to the fake hillary clinton. what is the real donald trump this is a public-private narrative about both. is this merely a locker room banter. or is this in fact admissions of sexual assault. for both of them. but it is counterbalance.

the agenda throughout the month of october. here, is the number of articles. you see substantial play in conservative media but you see a respectable level of play in mainstream media. it is during this time that ucb between the first two bars that we find of drop in perception. the question is what was in the news agenda that might have explained the shift. the scandal coverage. the last time that was the end time.

about the speculation about what is on the laptop. the bottom line is access hollywood the top line is wikileaks. because it continued to drop. they managed to keep themselves in the news cycle for the rest of the election. here is the effect unqualified. the effect of the agenda during the last two debates. here is the speech excerpts of hillary clinton. you just head to sort of figure out how to get back to the word balance. and that is not just a comment about today. if you saw the movie lincoln and how he is maneuvering to get the 13th amendment

passed and he called one of my favorite predecessors. he just been governor. and he told him i need your help. to get it done. if everybody is watching all of the backroom discussions and the deals that people get a little nervous to say the least. .. .. and one line in particular in the secretary clinton purportedly said you need both a public and private position on certain issues. so, two, from virginia apps, is its okay for politicians to be

two-face snelled is its acceptable for politician to have a private stance on issues? secretary clinton, your two minutes, as i recall, that was something i said about abraham lincoln, after having seen the wonderful stephen spielberg movie called "lincoln" am master class watching president lincoln get the congress to approve the 1st amendment. and -- the 13th amendment. its was primped and strategic and i was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the congress to do what you want to do, and you have to keep working at it, and, yes, president lincoln was trying to convince some people -- he used some arguments, convincing other people, used other arguments. that was a great -- i thought a great display of presidential

leadership. >> let's talk about what is really going on here, martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days, that the kremlin, meaning putin and the russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking, on american accounts to influence our election, and wikileaks is part of that, as or other sites where the russians hack information. we don't know if it's accurate information. and then they put it out. we have never in the history of our country ben in a situation where an adversary, foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the ic, and believe me, there's not doing it to get me elect. they're doing it to try continue nuisance the election for donald trump. maybe -- >> now she's blaming -- got caught in a total lie.

her papers went after all her friend banks, goldman sachs and everyone is and says things wikileaks that just came out, and she lied. now she is blaming the lie on the let great abraham lincoln. that's one i haven't -- [laughter] >> okay, honest abe never lied. that's the big difference between abraham lincoln and you. that's a big, big devils. we're talking about some difference. but as far as other elements of what she was saying, i know putin. think it would be great if we get along with russia because we can fight isis together, as an example. but i notice i anytime anything wrong happened they lake to sigh the russians -- she doesn't know if the russians are doing the hacking. maybe there is no hacking but -- the reason they blame russia is because the think they're trying to tarnish me with russia. know nothing but russia. know about russia but i know nothing but the inner workings

in russia. i have no businesses no launches from russia. >> that's how we get to today. to find out what the impact of those statements and debates was, to there are polling data, i encourage you look at the book to find out what the argument is about comey disinformation, encourage you to look at thing into. the argumentes the hacking affected the debate agenda and faith heed the news agenda, the hacking minimized the likelihood that sanders supported' would consolidate behind clinton and was the extent great enough to shift 78,000 votes. i'd we happy totake your comments and questions. or not. yes, ma'am. >> what do you think -- [inaudible question] -- because we are recording for c-span, if you could speak into the microphone, thank you. >> what do you think really motivated comey to come out with that information at the last

minute? >> the -- we know that from the public records from director comey, that there were two factors that play for him in making the unprecedented decision to make the july announcement but closing the clinton investigation without charging. ordinarily you expect they simply would indicate they're not charging. one was the meeting with and loretta lynch on the tarmac and the second was information he is not free to disclose in public which is classified information which press coverage would suggest is information in russian hands that suggest that lower resident to lynch gave assurances to clinton supporter in some fashion that the investigation would not go too far. there's no reason to believe, based on press accounts that loretta lynch knows the person she supposedly communicated with

or others relaying the information had done there. this is every reason to suspect the information that he says he was concerned would be released imminently was in fact russian disinformation. so if the sect classified factor is russian disinformation in the summer decision, then the question is, is that not still at play in october when they could have quietly undertaken the investigation of the contents of the weiner laptop and not disclosed the fact they were doing it. and if you believe that it is likely that hillary clinton is going to be president of the united states, which we know director comey has said he believed based on polling data was likely, it is at least plausible that he was trying to protect the integrity of her election by ensure the fact of the investigation of the server was in the released after she became elected and the cup true then say-wait a minute, we would have changed our vote had we

known that. so that is my argument for the information being russian disinformation at time one and if it was being at play as well at time two. otherwise, i don't see why he would make the statement in essence public by going to the congress. >> so you started out by saying it was going to be a discouraging talk, as i recall. >> did i disappoint you? >> not in the least. so i thought you would now tell us what should be done to minimize the effect of this social media campaigns in our political processes. >> the social media platforms were just sitting ducks for this. they're targeting structures are such that you did not need sophistication to know how to

engage in sophisticated targeting. studied political communication for a long time. after each major election i sit down with the time buyers to tell say tell me how you targeted the time. and they explain how the microtargetted this and cross-targeted that and the radio disthis in relation to cable and television. after which we would create charts and graphs that would try to capture it in order to put into it our studies. we don't need to do any of that to understand how you could reach exactly the same people right now because we could have ourselves with the knowledge that was publicly accessible, done sophies dictated targeting, as a heavily hire tom time buyers were engaging in. that's hour vulnerable social platforms were therapy weren't set up for politic i. they were set are for advertisers to target us. so if you're moth paying for something, you're the product. they're a got a highly sophisticated means of knowing that when the ad starts

following you around, you search to find one thing and then for the next couple of weeks all the ad for those thinks follow you around? imagine you take and that drive it behind some simple instructs to get to eevangelicals, military houstonhold, the african-american, sanders sporter and the structures are just sitting there to deliver. so first they fixed that. so it's more difficult to make those kinds of targeting moves root now as an outsider. secondly, you could buy tiding -- its aisle legal for a foreign national to buy advertising in our elect but you can do it inside the platforms because everything is so anonymizees and so dig digital and one of the mueller indimes is he illegal purchasing of identities and illegal bank conduct that bought the ads. now they've set up a structure so that you have to provide in one case a social security number and another a business i.d. number, and there's a verification process to confirm you're buying from within the

united states. so they're trying to make moves to shut this down. i if you went on youtube during the election you cue fine rot content but wouldn't have known rot, formerly russia today and it is state sponsored. now on youtube you find rrt is government sponsored content and find pbs has government funding and bbc. so they've universalized the disclosure but now we have more protection because now we can tie a source back to content. you might say i love the russians. propagandas my all you want, at east least you now it's the russians doing it. we have those kind of changes the place and their partnerships with fact checking organizations and the director of factcheck.org. we are now part of a partnership that takes crowd sourced disinformation, checks it to say is it accurate or not and we post up content through facebook, when someone searches

for it, they get our correction to the right in the search structure. that's an attempt to dampen down the effects of disinformation without infringing on political speech. how do you try to get more information in an environment which privileges the fir amendment and tooth -- ought to in every way probable. the moves by the platforms are not enough but they're there we're better protected. i'm concerned we have not heard from a our big reputable media outlets what they would do differently. after they made big mistakes in the past they have written editorials to say to us we made a mistake and here's howl we have leonard learned. they haven't said that about the use of the hacked content and some places they got the hacked content work. that's just bad journalism. in the pressure of having thousands of things dumpled on them with all those resources rushing to find things they presumed were news worthy, you can seal how they would make

that mistake. humans make mistakes under that pressure. i'd like to hear from the reports and big reporting companies that this hacking could have been against republicans or against democrats. would have guessed in the past if you said the russians would intervene, they intervene to disadvantage the republican north, the democrat, which is going to be true of russia relationships, ideally to the two political parties. so ininstead of people think can it was just the platforms, we have to get that under cross-i'd like them also to say a big effect of the hackers was mediate by our press. the hackers would have had no real ticket if it hadn't gotten the content into news. so i'd see what it's done differently. in the comey situation i think the russians may have checkmated him. if you believe that you're going to have the fbi and the justice department discredited by information in russian hands, just say it's a possibility that you're trying to set this up in order to make it really hard for

director comey to have any good choices, you first make sure the hacked content is accurate. so that nobody could say, this must be inaccurate. if something is dumped and it's disinformation. the hacked content is as far as we know accurate. the major piece of hacked content that were leased to wikileaks are accurate. at the beginning motor vehicle book i have a statement, quoting president putin, that essentially said, what is wrong with hacking? it was accurate, wasn't it? we should worry but the people who are trying to manipulate the american people. which i think is one of the fun 'er statement is have read in the last two years. but what that says to me is there's a strategy there. protect the accuracy of that so when you drop the disinformation, its accuracy will be assumed and given our polarized we are, if disinformation had been dropped to sigh lower retreat lynch was in the tank for the clinton administration, the a large part of the population would believe

it and call the election into question. what was the good choice? if the thought that human being hook be elected anyway, then the path that makes the most sense is, one in which you make sure the public knows you are in fact engaging in the investigation could and could have been negative for hillary clinton. who enough what hwa would be in the e-mails but at least it was and can as a result, you couldn't discredit her if she were elected, and of course she weren't, didn't have to worry, wouldn't be a discrediting but might have made a different changes had the polls not suggested strongly she would be the victor. >> in an earlier presore e social media day, if one wanted to influence policymaker know, or the times or the "wall street journal," depending on the point of view, would have been obvious. in this social media world, i

come to the earlier day -- >> so did i. >> what is the most influential channel or even medium in this new world? >> well, first, in a campaign environment, the reason i wanted to play the clip of the debates the debates are one of the last venues we -- that democrats and republicans and independents come together to watch in common. so, upward of 68 million of direct viewers doesn't count all the second dear viewing, or all the view through news pickups. to the extent there is one form that is thrill that we get both candidates with equal opportunity to make the kiss, the most influential forums debates and debates largely reinforce what people already believe that that doesn't mean they are not valuable because the increase the level of accurate information we have about both candidate. on average across debated.

it's an interesting finding because those who study politics, we're not going to learn anything. we do because you miss some things some sometimes you know one candidate's position but never heard the other. get the contrasted point of view. so there's extraordinarily valuable. wish we could find more venues like that which we come together and give people as much unmediate time to communicate with us unfiltered so we can make our own judgments. i'm now out of time. i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. i thank you those watching once c-span and those head ought into the cold winter night, thank you for joining me. [applause] >> thank you, everyone, for joining us. there's time to mingle and purchase books from the ivy book shop. you can also get your book

signed bocage lea