that. and guess what they're still lending in montgomery county. we're still the 10th wealthiest county in america. we were able to thread the needle. i think we can do it right here because i see -- there are so many good players in this . they are smart, they are innovative. >> i am a commissioner at the consumer product safety commission and during the obama administration you were my boss. this is a personal note. i first want to note that there was a great article in the "new york times" a few weeks ago about the differential that you pay when you have an index fund versus a brokerage account. that was a personal point for me because for years i was asking

my brokerage account how much i was paying in fees and it wasn't until i hired and independent consultant who told me how much i was paying. it shocked me. one of the points the article made was that over the course of 30 years, to investors -- two investors with roughly the same amount of money but one with an actively managed account would reap much less than going to an index fund. over the long run, actively managed accounts cannot beat the market. they are lucky to stay even with the market. i wonder if you could tell us if there are any studies you are aware of about an advantage of an actively managed account versus the advantages of an index fund. secretary perez: you have taken

the words out of my mouth. in our research we have seen the same studies. the concern i hear the most frequently is that this is going to hurt small savers. i would respectfully assert that small savers are the people who need to make sure that their advisors are working in their best interest. small savers don't have any margin for error and small savers, by and large, are going to do the best in an index fund or some other low fee kind of fun. -- kind of fund. he is not the only one in this space. you look at the aftermath of the u.k. and you see that there are

now web-based products that are springing up. and i don't want to overstate those, i am intrigued by the fact that innovation has really taken off their and i think we're a pretty darn innovative country here. get back to what i said, if you have the will to do something, you can do it. i look to the woman who asked the question about 503. no, we are not requiring employers to hire blind drivers. i can say that with certainty. and i repeat this because i am not making this up. these are some of the comments. but now i go to walgreens and as a result of the leadership of their corporate heads, you go to their distribution center in

connecticut and 40% of their employees are people with disabilities working side-by-side making $15 per hour or more. that is one of the most effective and productive places bless you, so they figured it out. in other companies are starting to figure it out. i feel like there is a little groundhog bayfield to this. i heard this in the mortgage space we tried to regulate. blacks and latinos will no longer have access to the american dream, that was the argument, in the mortgage space. and that was wrong. we need to move forward and we can move forward. the studies are legion. the studies are legion about how

the products that people are going to get into that are low-cost, high reward products are exactly what they need. i could take your corpus and make a little money rolling in over, but that wouldn't be in your best interest. everyone deserves to get the advice that my legal aid lawyer wife -- we are not the rockefellers. our margin for error is pretty slight and that is why we shopped around. i need you all to do this. to set up, through your networks, people who can provide second opinions for folks. what is going to happen is that as people are becoming more and more aware they will start asking questions. that is what should happen. the companies who can answer the

questions in a way that shows, i am looking out for you, those of the companies that have nothing to worry about. the companies who are beginning 24 -- who have been getting $24,000 or $26,000 per year -- we don't need that. the cannonball will do for just about everyone. this is doable. and your data is compelling. so thank you. >> thank you everyone. please take -- please join me in thanking secretary perez.

>> coming up on c-span, the directors for busby and gawker discuss changes -- for buz zfeed and gawker discuss changes in news media. then later a conversation with , transportation secretary anthony foxx. on the next washington journal congress and steve king from iowa discuss a range of issues including his recent trip to egypt, the ongoing iran nuclear negotiations. then brad sherman of california talks about the israeli elections, the iranian nuclear program, and the president's request to use military force against isis. then, a conversation with daniel

metcalf, who will talk about the e-mail server used by hillary clinton. what's the journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. secret service director joseph clancy testifies before a house appropriations subcommittee tuesday. it follows a string of security lapses at the white house and the recent report of agents driving drunk and running into a white house barricade. you can see it on tenet -- at 10:00 eastern time on c-span3. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] this weekend, the c-span city tour. inside the museum is remains of

a confederate ironclad, the css jackson. those oval shapes are the gun ports of the jackson. it was armed with six rifles. . i think there is a real appetite out there. all of us share the frustration with getting in our car and trying to get from point a to point b

they taped video from buzz feed to present enrollment to obamacare. from the university of chicago's institute of politics, this is one hour in 10 minutes. -- one hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> good evening. long gone are the days with two daily doses of news. in the morning, you read the paper and at night families cuddled around for the evening broadcast. now in the days of digital technology, news is costly reported and consumed.

americans are turning to online information. this age of new news is being run by websites such as buzzfe ed vice, and gawker. even of these organizations are younger than most people in the audience, they have a dramatic impact on how people receive information and perceive the world. we have the editor in chief -- the former editor-in-chief of ice. -- of vice. and we have the editor in chief of gawker. tom rosenfield, the executive director of the american press institute, will moderate. [applause]

>> a lot of the audience knows your organizations, but i want to start by asking you how you would describe the mission of your organization let's start with gawker. what do you see as the mission of gawker and what function do you plan your audience's lives? >> we spent a lot of the last year talking about this because gawker's been around for about 11 years. we have done a lot of different things. we grew into a place that not only covered breaking news but broke news itself along with cultural coverage. the one thread that has been pulled through the entire history has been our status as a trusted guide to what is bs and

what is not. the idea that we can speak honestly and say things that other news organizations are too afraid or concerned with their respectability to say means that we can take readers in and sit them down and give them a stiff drink and say actually, that thing the times was telling you is wrong. this is the real thing that is going on and these are the players behind the scenes and this is what you need to know in order to know the news. tom: it is like the inside story. max: we are too big now to pretend we are an organization for only insiders. the goal is to make everyone on the inside, to tear down the gatekeepers and to let there be -- to let everybody know what journalists are talking about at

the bar or when they see each other for lunch. tom: the names are intriguing. gawker and buzzfeed. what is the mission of buzz feed --buzzfeed. >> we have been working on our mission statement. we do not have that yet. we have slightly different missions. for the entertainment section it is really just entertaining people. we try to do all those things in a way that meets people where they are on the web. tom: let me follow up on that. you are known for cat videos. i've seen a presentation where

here is but -- here is buzz feed -- you also have this range of things that goes to watchdog journalism. what role do you see buzzfeed playing in the life of its audience or role? shani: for me because i work primarily with news is being a trustworthy source. we have these bands that don't have a reason to trust us because we haven't been presenting ourselves as a trustworthy source of news. that is what has been changing the last couple of years. from my perspective, a big part of it is helping our readers understand you working for them.

tom: i will push on that when we get to revenue models. rocco, you have been 10 years advice. -- 10 years at vice. rocco: as of last night i am no longer with vice. in order to come to this event i felt that given some circumstances we won't get int o in order to be here and talk to you guys, some stuff happened. tom: so you're speaking as an individual? rocco: speaking as a good american. tom: how does vice fit into

this new media ecosystem? rocco: we used to have a rate card, vice is the all-encompassing, all-swallowing whore of babylon. they were proud of it and there is a degree of truth to that. vice is vice, and what it started out as is a free publication in montreal. the newsprint evolved from being literally about vice, sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll and things that make you uncomfortable, and over the years given different voids in the mediasphere and places that were lacking interesting reporting, i think some of this was my luck and some accident, and some of it was the will of the founders and everyone that works there, it transitioned

somehow that these those -- somehow that ethos into expanding the definition of vice, because vice can be bad politics or eating too much, vice could be pretty much anything in this world and it is a pretty crazy world. they have managed to keep and he -- keep and ethos that is transferred into news and what we are accepting as news these days. tom: before we get to revenue models, let me ask about the fact that all three of your organizations have grown so much. what is the void that you were filling, was it knowing digital technology and digital publishing? was it data, was it something else, whoever wants to jump at that one?

max: there is an information arbitrage going on. every journalist who has ever worked on a story has had information they were not able to put into that story because they had editors who are lawyers who were afraid of it or who were friends of the people who the story was about or otherwise did not want to put that in the paper. that is a huge amount of information that a lot of people might be interested in that we have long sort of held the perfect gawker story, you hear at a bar with another journalist and you tell everyone else. because it should be public knowledge. there was nobody really doing that. there are people who did something similar. at various times, certainly tabloids, it is a tabloid-related kind of thing.

these mtv-like words like raw and uncensored, there was nobody doing news the way people he -- the way people actually talk about news and the way that you swing to your cubicle mate at the office and you say, did you hear about such and such a news story and you talk it through in a way that involves a rumor and gossip and is not necessarily concerned with the specifics and being able to pin down individual facts, just presenting it to one another and sifting through it yourselves and trusting yourselves to do it. tom: how about at buzzfeed? it is a data company and a technology company and studies the audience very deeply. what is the engine of your growth, would you say?

>> from the perspective of news it comes from the fact that we have pretty traditional backgrounds in a lot of our news leadership. we started with politics with ben smith, our editor-in-chief. we realized we needed to be on top of breaking news because something we learned during the boston marathon bombing was that people were coming to us to see if we had updated information and that is something that never happened before in large numbers. and that was the point at which we started beefing up the breaking news operations. it just kind of grew out from there. it was like, we should invest in foreign correspondents and world leader reporting. part of it is about being

fascinating and interesting and worth telling our readers about. there are all these different halves that we expanded -- different paths that we expanded into tom: you attracted the big audience and you had money. what was the engine behind that, that you made your storytelling easy to millennial's and brought audiences to follow or was it that you study the audience or was it that you were built around sharing and mobile? >> part of it is knowing what people like. jonah, our founder, look at how people interact online and has a million stories about how information is shared.

part of it is knowing people are interested in things that make them feel smart or good or want to share those emotions with other people. there is also this other aspect. human psychology that is harder to quantify. and you can build a big audience and build a lot of traffic. but you have to be a thing that your audience believes in. tom: the data would suggest that people share different things publicly than they do in their e-mail. what's you publicly put something out there, it means you are recommending it. >> although that has changed.

i think three years ago people weren't sharing as much content about things like sex and now things have really shifted where people feel completely comfortable sharing a lot of stuff on facebook in public with their names attached. tom: rocco, what is the essence of vices -- rocco: i think the term immersion -- immersion is about emerging -- more so than transparency. you are being honest about your

own experience, not getting in the way of the story, and i think that translates to video very well. i think it is interesting to think about how it might translate to social. i'm not sure how that works. we're seeing things like that emerge. things like set chat, --snap chat, we were talking earlier about this. it makes you feel like you have an exclusive on something. that might be the next frontier of how we interact. i think one thing that vice has taken from the old guard is listening to its readers and viewers and those are the people that you have to answer to. and keeping the pulse on that zeitgeist. which is different from the old style. that debate of objectivity

versus transparency, that is nothing new. and taking things a step further and knowing that everything you do and anything you do is out there probably recorded in some regard and there will be some cultural shifts already happening. you are seeing it on an entertainment level. all those things are participatory. tom: we will get into that in a minute. we have been talking about that as a big issue. but before we do, let's get down to one other basic thing so people understand the structure of your organizations. traditional american media has been funded by advertising and in print and broadcast and radio that was some version of display ads or video ads. what is the revenue model of gawker, and if it is advertising, what kind?

max: we are at -- in 2013 we were 85% funded by advertisements, something like that for last year. we have a very traditional revenue model. and the slightly different thing we do from print, we sell sponsored posts which are posts not written by advertisers but approved by advertisers and that are prominently labeled as such and such a post sponsored by newcastle brown ale. they appear in our fee in a way that is sort -- that is sort of similar to our posts. you do see this in newspapers and magazines. the other bit of revenue that we get is growing very quickly, it is that gawker is one of eight

sister blogs. we have a host of gadget and tech-focused blogs. when they review, it includes an amazon link to that game or gadget that we have an affiliate relationship to amazon. if you purchase we get a portion of the revenue. 15% of the revenue was just through affiliate links alone. that is a weirdly growing thing. i am not 100% comfortable with it but we do label this stuff. if you purchase this object through our link we receive a portion of the revenue. tom: so it is transaction revenue. how easy is it to know that sponsored content is sponsored content? max: it depends on the person. i'm skeptical that the majority of our readers even know what gawker is or what they are seeing when they see the stuff

they come across. given that many of our viewers are new readers. i am mostly pretty comfortable with the offset. the colors are slightly different, there is a prominent link at the top that said this was sponsored by so-and-so. you cannot comment on them. advertisers are not interested in letting you comment on stuff they have. [laughter] it strikes me as similar to what print and newspapers and magazines have done with the ads that are meant to resemble a newspaper but there is also something funny. tom: do you sell banner and pop-up ads? max: we do. i've not super privy to the workings of our advertising department. tom: i saw john perretti do a presentation at sxsw and he told

the origin tale, i'm sure you have seen this many times and he said, when we started buzzfeed we started with the presumption that the traditional advertising on the web is called banner and pop-up ads, he said, we start with the presumption that banner ads and popup ads suck and we're going to invent a new form that people like as much as the rest of our content and really gave a big impetus to what is called sponsored content. is that 100% of your revenue? aneri: i think so. i do not have to think about that in my area as an editor. tom: you have no involvement in creating this sponsored content. max: no. there is a chinese wall.

tom: how about at vice? rocco: people still buy magazines to look at the advertisement, so that worked for so long. it is church and state and there is a third prong which is technology. technology, you look at ink on paper for so long. technology develops more quickly as we move through time. and you see pop-up ads. those quickly lost their value. you are seeing native advertising. whatever word you want to come up with it. there is going to be new platforms through which content and advertising are distributed.

those three prongs in some ways is how i believe vice's revenue model works. i tried not to think about it while i was there. there is definitely like i see about magazines. that is what advertisers want. you do not want the acura ad next to a pile up on the freeway but you are buying the readership. or the viewership. i think the model at vice is similar. there is also a creative services division that i think the ultimate goal would not be to do anything that necessarily crosses that line and basically because of our content, we are working with brands closely so they think there is an authenticity there.

so you can make a custom campaign for them. there is a different leg there than what is going on with you guys. tom: as the editor, do you have if there is some sponsored content, do you think this is terrible, can you throw a veto up? max: i have an open line to people who do that, but i don't have a veto. to their credit they want it to be good. they want stuff that hews to a voice that advertisers can be comfortable with. it has some of that gawker aura. our videogame site had an ad -- had a sponsored post go up that misspelled the site's name

all the way through the ad. it is better not to be able to say, take down this horrible sponsored post unless it is legitimately making it more difficult for my, when you buy a big package or a wraparound. tom: at gawker it is a certain kind of trust. at buzz feed, you are trying to build up trust. as the editors, you are in charge of protecting that trust on some level. does anybody agree? max: in theory. rocco: i was. tom: what metric is most important to you? max: traditionally at gawker it has been paid to use. -- page views. we have to bring in a certain number of page views per month. we are talking about moving away from that to a new set of

metrics. the best metric is getting a couple e-mails from people who really like what we do. i don't know if that is the metric of success, but it is the closest thing to feeling like i did something good instead of just achieved whatever gameified numerical thing. tom: that is the kind of thing you might have heard manager say 30 years ago. aneri: my personal metric is getting someone fired who has been acting badly at their job. i feel like there is so many. we have social lists which is a proprietary calculation of how many people see it, per person who has shared it.

getting a sense of how far it is spreading beyond the people that you feed it to. in addition, time spent and obviously page views. tom: what is vice thinking about? rocco: putting someone in jail who was lying. that is my ultimate goal. you can get a lot of traffic off that, to. internally, of course, page views matter. of course, all this technology where we can see, the reader is the most important. also part of our jobs is to not be disingenuous but you do want to bake -- want to bait them

in with honey and give them saltwater when they come in. not just cats, but all sorts of stuff. you are not entirely new. tom: let's talk about ethics. do you have an ethics policy? you don't at gawker? max: i have a personal set of ethics. i hope my writers do too. my sense of ethics codes is that they tend to be used to trap us. the idea is to give us this box we are held accountable against. the executive editor is fond of saying that ethics is a measure of how much scurrilousness news your brand is willing to bear. we are in the business of getting information. how much are you willing to get

that information in ways that people are not going to like and we're willing to go and do stuff that a lot of people feel uncomfortable with. tom: what would you get fired for? max: not doing a good job. i have never had a writer fired for a story over doing something. plagiarism, we suspended a writer for a hint of plagiarism, misrepresenting your work, those kinds of things will get you fired but not stuff like getting the story that passes off an advertiser or something. tom: at buzzfeed, you just wrote one. what is the essence, what is the central concept? aneri: i canvassed people across editorial and it took a few months to put this together. my thought behind it is mostly

it needs to make it easy for reporters to do their job. and that to me means giving everybody guidelines. not necessarily exact answers for how to approach any ethical crisis. how i think, how ben thinks. because we have become this very large organization, making it easy to approach any ethical situation. making it as easy as possible for people to do their job. tom: you sent me an email about what guidelines should journalists follow when they are dealing with confidential information that was obtained illegally. the sony case being the most classic.

are there established guidelines, what should they be and increasingly this question of massive amounts of data that have been obtained by who knows. so this touches on that. and also, the question of information that is secondhand, that do not gather -- that you did not gather yourself. what should be the stance of journalists about illegally obtained but not illegally by you material? rocco: i think the standard has been pretty much the same and it still is. i have read the f ethics -- i

have read the ethics code and i think it is great. but they are pretty traditional values, i think. i think really the question is, is it in the public interest to know. you can get into the whole gatekeeper thing. the way i feel about ethics is morality is no longer a religious thing, it is no longer something that your mom teaches you, it is an efficiency. if you live, you die. -- if you lie, you die. because if it's comes out it will be much worse. that to me is the most simple policy. in terms of these leaks, how do you go through gigabytes or terabytes of information and not look at people's social security numbers and these things that

are illegally obtained. and the hackers are then having, in this case, an agenda of putting certain buckets of this together. the story becomes so big at some point. is it in the public's interest? i bet max has some thoughts on this with the sony hacks. max: maybe the best way to say it is that every story and writer and editor is different. but there are a huge amount of factors you are weighing. public interest is maybe the biggest one. tom: by public interest do you mean is interesting or to the survey public good? -- or does it serve a public good? max: maybe that's the same thing. sony is a good example.

sony in particular is a slamdunk argument for me because we are talking about the actual business workings of a multibillion dollar company that is having trouble right now and in this case, angelina jolie is actually instrumental to a set of business decisions being made by this company. this is celebrity gossip and this was apparent when we publish some e-mails between jolie, amy pascal, and others. we published in part because it was a fantastic story with hollywood quality expletives and insults but also because this is about a famous disaster of a movie. the steve jobs movie was a disaster for this huge and powerful, -- huge and powerful company. these e-mails unquestionably survey public interest.

versus the social security numbers of thousands of sony employees, there is basically no case that you can make that that serve the public interest. >> i think similarly i would say that we found the e-mails between amy pascal and scott rudin about obama's favorite movies which all happened to be starring black people. that is actually news. films by black directors are having trouble being green lit. it all plays into decisions being made about films we are seeing. tom: would you say you are all in the journalism business?

>> yes. tom: that was a question that i wanted to ask. i think there is a lot of new media that resists that word. that thinks that is something old and we're inventing something new. max: gawker's founder used to say that we are not journalists but we may do journalism accidentally. tom: what made you become journalists? max: it became clear that what we were doing was journalism. we have always believed that gossip was news and it soon became that if that is the case then gossiping is an act of journalism. we have been breaking news for so long and doing actual reporting for so long that it

seems silly to keep up the appearance of being some new media pirate hating journalism. tom: we are going to go to the audience but to quit questions first. -- two quick questions. what is the biggest mistake you think your organization has made? you start, maybe i will come back around. aneri: i think one of the biggest mistakes we made which gawker reported on was that in the early days of buzz feed when we were kind of a content laboratory, we did not have journalists. this predated me and our editor-in-chief. there was kind of a lot of bizarre and not quite up to par

posts on the site. at some point somebody decided to delete them from the site under the auspices of them predating our journalism operation. i think we shouldn't have deleted those posts, not just because we didn't get caught, but because deleting something is the fastest way to get caught. even if is not -- even if it is not as down and dirty as some might suggest. max: from a purely journalistic point of view, we kept our foot to the pedal as page views as a metric for success for one half to two years too long. recently facebook has changed the way that it serves up stories to people on its feet, which means that stories now get

all kinds of insane numbers of reading them without very much effort or quality. we continue to believe for the most part that quality and popularity is not identical very closely. but facebook has changed that dynamic. we should have been, a couple years ago at the very least think of new ways to measure success. tom: this is what i want to ship to, what do you think -- want to shift to, what do you think the biggest mistakes that new media are making generally? rocco: i think not being transparent to your readers at all times is the biggest mistake you can make in this game.

tom: when you say transparent does that mean transparent about how you got the story or your personal politics or transparent about your intentions? that is a major concept in my books. what do you mean by transparency? rocco: getting back to church-state. i think this applies to a lot of places in the media and some experimental business models. i think if you are going to say that you speak the truth, you have to be able to do that really unfettered. i don't know, it sounds like you guys can talk smack on your boss . >> we are encouraged.

tom: we are going to go in the green or later and talk about stuff we couldn't talk about appeared and max will put it on gawker. the last question would be where do you see this being in five years? what do you see news looking like in five years to the extent that you can make predictions? aneri: i don't like to make predictions. we were talking about this earlier that it is usually useless. as a traditionalist -- a pretty traditional journalist, i don't see the fundamentals changing very much in terms of what is good and right and how to report. beyond that, i don't know, it

might all fall apart. tom: we know we are going mobile. how will that affect storytelling and delivery? andereri: the majority of our readership comes to mobile. it is kind of fun with our tech team. they are able to give us a preview of what the post will click on mobile and we call it the mobile preview. because we are sitting at computers all day writing, be able to get a sense of how people are actually consuming the buzz feed posts is useful. tom: even more understanding of the audience's behavior the? aneri: yes.

it is very important to know which celebrity couple you want to have a threesome with. we can't tell people that they can -- that they should take kim and kanye, but obviously -- rocco: i hope the future is smell-o-vision and holograms. max: everyone who says they know what the content industry will look like 18 months from now is lying. you can build trust with your writers and publication and if you have a fantastic tech team that can help you deliver the stories in ways readers can appreciate, then i'm sure you are set.

the hope is that nothing will change so much that it will push quality of publication behind business. tom: how much of your traffic comes through social? max: ours is about one third facebook, one third e-mail i m, and the other third is -- aneri: i couldn't tell you off the top of my head but i do know it is primarily facebook followed by interest and then twitter -- followed by pinterest and then twitter. rocco: i think myspace the follows that model minus the pinterest.

tom: how important is your understanding of facebook's mysterious algorithm? aneri: i don't think you can access about it because it changes constantly and there is not one algorithm. focusing on what will get me a bunch of traffic today over what people actually care about -- tom: so you don't focus on the intermediary, you are still focused on the audience. in an increasingly crowded marketplace, one argument can be made -- and you have all talked about this. you've all drifted to being more trustworthy. you are building a -- do you think that your brand is going

to sort of my great toward becoming more serious and more trustworthy -- sort of my migrate toward becoming more serious and more trustworthy? max: trustworthy is a word that i want to mean something in it might not. trustworthy means that people want to be -- want us to be honest with them, not necessarily that it is specifically true. we are a gossip rag. the hope is that we have integrity and identity for people to recognize that and make the judgment about the stuff that we are presenting with our help taste on transparency and honesty -- with our help based on transparency and honesty.

the only thing -- if the only thing you can rely on is your name then you have to make sure that your name is taken seriously or at least understood. tom: in your case it is sort of a 21st century tabloid. and in buzz feed? aneri: not too serious. rocco: journalists should be funny. but at the same time i think that the world is in a weird way and some serious issues need to be addressed that maybe weren't addressed earlier. i think that is a trend, if you will. tom: our trend is to go to the audience. >> thank you so much for coming.

i was wondering if max and rocco would respond to something max wrote on gawker. we write stories -- [indiscernible] we are an independent publishing company, vice is a marketing company. max: we are talking about a question of business models. one reason i wrote that in that fashion is that we had a history of reporting on vice and a history of people coming into

the stories and telling us that we are only reporting on vice because we are jealous. i think it is important that readers also realize that we are doing that reporting because the stories are important. tom: must try to stick to one question per person. >> you all consider yourself to be in the journalism business, but you also work for websites where you want to maximize the amount of views. and also websites where viewers come from facebook and other social media. how do you balance content that is important but also serves as being click bait. aneri: we don't do click bait.

not every story needs to get the same amount of traffic. i think that is the most important thing to understand. for me, what i think about most is the story reaching the people that it needs to reach. if we are doing a story on chronic fatigue syndrome and it goes to 60,000 people, and then you do a quiz on moments that restore your faith in humanity and he goes to 4 million people, that is ok. because the 60,000 people that read the chronic fatigue syndrome article are e-mailing you. i think that there are so many different metrics that we can measure success on that thinking about everything as traffic is detrimental to the soul but also bad for business.

tom: do you have expectations about how well a certain story should do, or is that more refined than your analytical gas? aneri: i think i have a general idea what a success looks like but we don't have traffic goals. rocco: i will say i think the metric for me is quality. quality needs to be determined somehow. i think you can pretty much say that piece is going to go nuts and maybe get on reddit. i know people want to read it. that's our job to predict that. there are other pieces that you try to be dispassionate about.

people will e-mail you about the story and if the right person reads it, maybe something does change. that does change. aneri: we helped get a senior nsa official fired because of conflict of interest in her business. that story did not go wide on facebook by any means. i would take that almost any day. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming. this has been very entertaining. my question is, do you think someone reading exclusively new media could be fully informed? do you think your readers have the perception of being fully

informed if they are only getting new form media? max: i do not think there is such a thing as fully informed. i think you could consider yourself well-informed. aneri: i will steal this from my boss. people think of a middleground reader who reads the newspaper every day and is a little interested in the latest incident and the rocket going to space and 10 different things and wants to read the paper to get an incremental update, and that person doesn't really exist. the concept of fully informed is not what i think about. rocco: i will say people are more complex than marketing departments or editorial departments want to give them credit for. >> thanks for coming.

buzzfeed, gawker, and vice have subsets. if you can add or remove a subsection, which would you choose and why? aneri: from each other's sites? >> it's open. max: i think the thing we do well is coverage of internet culture. we call it weird internet. it's not just weird. it's internet. our sister site does a little bit of it. it's a huge new arena. it needs good journalists doing work because it's influential. aneri: i want to find a way to

tell climate stories in a way that is readable and compelling, and it's really hard. the market for climate journalists has been so diminished, there is hardly anyone doing it. the people are doing worthy but not readable work. figuring that out is something i would really like to do. tom: traditional newsrooms have largely given up on a lot of diversity goals. what we have seen in the research we have done, the digital divide and the sense of people of color not being connected to the internet, that did not happen. the other promise of digital that there would be a new diversity of content also has not happened.

there is a growing concern, and now we see there is even gender diversity issues. do you see this as a major concern, that if the goal is to get the scale as fast as possible you rush to broad appeal, and niches like that are not going to be served? rocco: i think it is a concern. if you can successfully use some of that to push forward stuff people might not otherwise read, i think it balances it out. it's a tough dilemma. tom: you think the family of sites serve the purpose because it allows you to serve that stuff out?

rocco: they can choose. they cross over. the way things are going more vertical, sister sites -- there has to be from an aesthetic point of view -- as long as there is that it only serves the reader more. >> mine is primarily for shawnee. you mentioned how you wanted to move to a more serious site but not necessarily get rid of the things with cats. aneri: i love that stuff. >> do you think it would undermine the seriousness? there has been interesting op-ed pieces even if i don't agree, i appreciate that, but also

reading some of the comments on the less academic posts like of cats. do you see those as harmful? aneri: no, i find them genuinely interesting. most people are not reading buz zfeed as a whole is somebody that is interested in media. tumblr sends no traffic.

we like to research what our users think. people who find out we do serious news, their estimate rises because they didn't know. i think it is not to do less fun stuff but to do more news. they do not think less of us because we have fun quizzes. >> what is your approach to international news? rocco especially. i think vice has had the best coverage over the years but also the future of buzzfeed. rocco: i was speaking earlier.

we had a south of sudan issue, saving south sudan. there was one author and one photographer, a 30,000 word story about why it was a failed state. we did a 40-minute doc. i would love to bring attention to issues like that. i would love to basically pick one topic, and concentric rings is important. you keep building on the story that has not been tapped and can be a solution. how that would affect me, that's an important thing. this is how it affects you, the oil in sudan, however you want

to follow the money trail. i think that can be an interesting thing. shani: i am not sure what your specific question was about b uzzfeed. i guess there are two fronts under which we do international news. one of which is foreign correspondents. one is nairobi on the border of turkey. we are hiring a correspondent in nigeria. we have people scattered about sending in dispatches in a very traditional way. we are also expanding in terms of our euros. we have a london bureau. they are doing news and entertainment for the u.k.

we are also looking to expand in brazil and a few other places. >> your organizations have been around almost it's the beginning of the community that has started on the internet. your websites are very entrenched in these kinds of communities and were built at the same time. you have to contend with these groups that are coming to the internet in this new age well still being this new media that was formed on the internet, except for vice, which started in print. how do you deal with these communities that are coming to the internet and are based on the print media? max: that is a really

interesting question and one that i do not and about that much. i would think that my audience would be gone enough -- we are not an appealing place for people of my parents generation, as might errands are fond of telling me. we do not think about them much at all. a publication that is largely under the age of 30. entirely under the age of 40. we think about news from the perspective of people that age. read -- we write news from that perspective. we will take whatever audience comes, but it is not a coincidence that our audience is largely young. i hope that answers your questions. shani: i have not thought that much about people that are not that internety

coming to our website that much. we do a wide variety of things. there are things that will appeal to them and things that will not appeal to them at all. hopefully, the right things will find them. tom: do you care less? is a reader less important if they are 62 your advertisers? rocco: advertisers probably. i genuinely do not think about our demographics much. our demographics are specific, and that is an accident of who we are. i am a little bit more -- teens who are bigger in number than 45 plus also don't care or like

us much because they -- we are not instagram or snapshot. people are used to getting their news from print. >> building on that idea of community, one thing that is unique to websites is commenters. i was wondering the commenting scene on gawker, i wonder how you viewed that. most sites hide it at the bottom of the page. how you saw it playing into the whole new media scene. max: the founder of our company would be happy to hear you say that. just as we are meant to be holding those in power accountable, we give the reader

a chance to hold us accountable on the pages that we write. we have a bunch of vibrant intelligent, sharp commenters that can augment context and call us out if we are wrong or doing something that late. anybody who has done this long enough on the web knows that in order to have a productive and worthwhile commenting community or online forum community you have to have active online forums and to weed out trolls. not just to fall back on these click -- cliquey, mean girly type of things. i am not ready to give up on the dream of a great comments section. i do not blame any organization that does not devote the resources to it. there is nothing worse than having a writer write something

that is incredibly intelligent and brave and have the first comment the ;tr. or i looked you up online and you are fucking ugly. women writers are victim to these misogynistic, terrible comments. if you are a commentor, i can only strengthen a website. i think it can only make a publication better. if you do not, you could give actual racists a platform on your page. shani: --tom: are there other ways to interact with the community? max: the technology pushing gawker is to come up with some

sort of system that makes the comment section self moderating. tom: if you come up with something, send your physical address. shani: for news, we have removed what we call our native comments. those are the buzzfeed account comments. there is no reason for anybody to comment on a story about israel and palestine. we can make it difficult to comment on news stories unless you have a facebook account. for things like lists and quizzes or lifestyle things, comments are actually really useful. people can say that i tried this tip and it worked for me. there are some funny people that tell funny jokes that go along with the vibe of the post. the community moderators spend

time monitoring those places instead of terrorism and rasul -- racial strife. there is less value to have comments on stories like that. tom: i think we are out of time. journalism is constantly evolving. one of my great friends says that every generation invents its own journalism. "the new york times" was invented in the beginning of the 20th century in response to yellow journalism. it was a reaction. we think of journalism as this permanent bank and that has never been the case. when i got into this business a very long time ago, we were trying to put our footsteps into the prints of our elders and men at what they did. a almost ciceronian way of

learning. you guys are inventing a new form of journalism, which can be messy. it is also a dynamic age. if you are young and thinking about this, you are going to invent the next journalism, and that is pretty cool. the disruption in media, the most profound disruption is financial. it is not that the audience has gone away. the audience is actually bigger and more constant than it has ever been. >> we would like to thank our fantastic panel -- [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> federal communications chair tom wheeler testifies on capitol hill on wednesday at a hearing examining new fcc rules and policies and what role the white house plays. we will be on site wednesday at 2:30 eastern on c-span3. on the next "watching to journal " steve king of iowa will discuss a range of issues

including his recent trip to egypt, the ongoing iranian nuclear negotiations, and immigration. a member of the foreign affairs terrorism committee discusses the president's request to use military force against isis. later, a conversation with annual metcalf. he will talk about the personal e-mail server used by hillary clinton and what it means for transparency and availability of government information. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern every day on c-span. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and twitter. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered to learn about the lives of columbia georgia.

>> this is an ironclad that was ill here in columbus during the war. these are actually the gun ports of jackson. jackson is armed with six brook rifles. the rifle fire today was one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama. it was completed in january of 1865. the real claim to name is the fact that there are only four iron clads from the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here. this is why this facility is here. first and foremost, it tells the story of this particular ironclad. it shows that there are more than one or two iron clads.

>> watch our events from columbus. >> the senate debate over the nomination of loretta lynch to serve as attorney general and human trafficking. martin matishak is following capitol hill for the newspaper. thank you very much for being with us. martin: thank you for having me. >> i want to begin with the house for and services committee. we will begin with ashton carter. we heard from john kerry who has been working on a deal with iran. he has been in switzerland. we will hear from general martin dempsey. just how contentious will this hearing the? >> this could be a contentious hearing for secretary carter and martin dempsey. they were up before the senate on late relations committee.

they were up for four hours. it raise more questions than it answered about military force against islamic militants. the services committee is pretty full of veterans that have served in iraq and afghanistan. they will take these officials to the mat and grill them on specific language. >> the white house continues to insist that it can move forward with action against isis without congressional approval. why is it insistent on having authorization for military force? >> what we saw last week is the white house feels that that would send a signal to our allies and the world that washington and the united states is united and we can lead on this issue.

secretary kerry said that this should not be a party line vote. congressmen should come in and sign off on their strategy. we can all move forward with defeating islamic militants. >> the general consensus is that republicans feel that it does not go far enough. democrats fear that it does not go -- that it goes too far. martin: i think that senator bob corker of tennessee said, i do not know of a single democrat who supports this. i do not know if in my caucus there is anyone who supports it. it seems to be going nowhere fast. last week's meeting did nothing to assuage fears. what is this really doing if we pass this or not? it has been panned by members of

both parties. >> the house services committee will take place on wednesday and thursday. the senate armed services committee focusing on classified issues yelling with china and russia and shipbuilding capabilities and the air force's modernization efforts. walk us through those topics hearing -- topics. martin: there was a hearing the past few weeks. there was that u.s. northern command, the u.s. southern command. what are you asking us to approve in terms of money? what are you going to do with that? it is also a chance for john mccain, the chairman of the committee, to highlight the problem of sequestration. the spending caps are put in place up for the cap. how bad is it going to get if we

do not do something about sequester? it has been doom and gloom. they have painted a bleak picture if these spending caps are not lifted. this is getting into how the navy shipbuilding will be affected. air force modernization has been very contentious on capitol hill. how will this happen in the years and months ahead if we do not do something about sequestration? >> we heard from administration officials, the president, the vice president, secretary john kerry was in utter disbelief about the letter from republican leadership to the iranian government. i would expect that is going to be a very contentious issue and a very contentious hearing. martin: yes. that is putting that mildly.

he will be grilled by members of both parties. we are coming up on the third self-imposed deadline that negotiators have given themselves. there was the deadline. there was last week's letter from the 40 gop senators. it could be a perfect storm of anxiety and angst and worry about where these talks are. we are so close are we are not close. trust us, we are doing everything we can. republicans are terrified that the administration and international partners will agree to a bad deal. democrats are also concerned about that. will be more partisan than the last 10 days. >> what about the issue of sanctions? the sanctions remain in place. the irani and government wants

them lifted as part of these negotiation's. martin: they will ask how quickly can sanctions be reimposed? how quickly can we do it again if i ran violates a international agreement? this is about a yes or no vote on the deal. which sanctions should come off first? >> a back to work week for the senate and the house this week. martin matishak will be following all of this. his work is online. thank you for being with us. martin: thanks for having me. >> the university of california berkeley is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the free speech

movement on its campus. gabriel stricker discusses twitter's policies and how they impact free speech around the world. it is 50 minutes. >> today it is an absolute the light for me to introduce and welcome gabriel stricker. he is a cal alum. he is chief of communications at twitter, communications officer. we will be welcoming back, not just for this event but he has been helping berkeley think about and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the free speech movement. it is quite important in berkeley this year. his bachelor in arts was in latin american studies. his current role as chief communications officer. he leads the movement for media relations and public policy.

he first came to twitter in 2012, stepping into one of the world's highest profile roles in the communications field. he has been credited by many as the driving force behind turning around twitter's public reputation. gabriel has been well recognized for his success in the field. he is recognized as one of the hundred most influential public communicators. named one of the 20 most communication professionals by business insider. prior to joining twitter in 2012, he was the director of public affairs at google where he was active on the issue of free expression and defended the company's refusal to censor information.

his earlier work was in campaign politics. he developed his expertise and strategic medications through his work in the electoral arena. we have a chance to talk to him on a variety of topics. the expression and free speech and leadership. and the culture and what makes organizations work at her. we will also have a chance to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the free speech movement. the free speech cafe, i am sure many of you have been there. it is a remarkable tradition at this institution. it is an important part of this institution and our society. the notion of freedom of expression is not equally appreciated throughout the whole world. part of those different valued judgments on where you draw the line on expression is an active

part of discussion and management. there is much to cover. let me introduce to you gabriel strickler. [applause] let me start with the free speech movement. i have mentioned it a couple of times. you weren't here in the 60's. i was here a little after that. can you say a little bit about free speech and how it relates to twitter and that fine line between freedom of expression and the things that happen when expression is too free. gabriel: thank you for having me here. it is always lovely to be back. the free speech movement definitely predated me. i graduated as an undergrad in the early 90's. that disruptive spirit of the

free speech movement lived on. today on campus, there is an attempt to figure out how to keep that culture going. the good news is that that culture exists beyond that place. many graduates like myself that are in companies like twitter and before that, google, we are figuring out how those values are part of what we do. for me, i get to go to work every day at a place that is arguably one of the most extraordinary viral platforms that has ever existed. it has been this amazing vector that has facilitated free expression around the world. the mythology is that we create these technologies with free expression in mind. wouldn't it be amazing if we could create these platforms that make all of these flowers bloom?

we have an impact of what -- an idea of what the impact it would be. we never thought it would be used in the way it has been and facilitate revolutions, like it has an giving plate -- people voices. it is an ongoing commitment to upholding the platform. as you say, it is a tricky one. in the same way for those of you who are less familiar with twitter, one of the things that has allowed the rise of it is that we support pseudonyms. unlike other platforms that require you to give your actual identity, because we allow pseudonyms if you go into cases like the arab spring, it turns out that if you want to take down the man it's a lot easier

to do so if you do not have to using it in abusive ways. that is a tricky balance. today, we are grappling with our ceo. one of our internal e-mails was lestriking that balance. what are the ways to preserve the beauty of the platform as this incredible vehicle for free expression while at the same time having ease that prevent people from engaging in abusive behavior. it is a dailyllenge.

if you felt that pseudonyms allow many things, there might be tools to manage some of these unfortunate behaviors and outcomes that come from it. could you give us an example where trolling and things along those lines, we have tried to address that issue in a more targeted way? gabriel: yes. i can tell you the things we have done and the things you can expect from us going forward. some of you may look at this as just fixing bugs. some of them have been more or less difficult. we have done a pretty lackluster job of making it pretty impossible even to report abuse. the amount of hoops people have had to go through to say that someone is engaging with me in a super abusive manner, it has to be the case that it is roughly

as easy to report the abuse as it is to do the abusing. in our case, for the longest time, it was easy to engage in the abuse and really hard to report it. that is something that we have gone out of our way to fix. the next step, in balancing the ability for someone to express themselves freely and giving someone the ability to not have to be exposed to abusive behavior, for those of you less familiar with twitter, one of its hallmarks is that you have an asymmetrical follow graph. we can follow each other. it can also be the case that you wallow me, but i do not follow you. if you are sending tweets to me throughout the day saying that you are a jerk, if we follow

each other, i am saying that i really want to hear you telling me that you are a jerk. if i do not follow you and you are telling me throughout the day if you are a jerk, we have more powerful examples, maybe there should be ways that you -- if you are bombarding me with this, i can be protected. you can say it, but i have a greater ability to tune it out. >> a super example. for those of you who are tweeting, we have a #haa sspeakers if you want to tweet any of this. i always take notes and i always tweet after talks. i personally appreciate twitter. when i first became dean, people

said that you should do these blog posts. i thought, holy smokes, i could spend half my day doing that. 140 characters, it is a great bite size for putting out thoughts. for a lot of us who are in seat where we get to hear a lot of different rings every day. let me bounce them back out so other people can hear some of the stuff that i am hearing. recently twitter sued the federal government about the ability to disclose more information in its ongoing transparency report. can you tell me about that? gabriel: i should just say that twitter was not the worst to have a -- first to have a transparency report. when i was at google, we started the process of issuing these transparency reports.

when technology companies get requests from governments around the world specifically to take action on certain content whether it be to remove content because it violates their local laws, to suspend accounts because it is against whatever their local policies are, a lot of the companies have felt like there needs to be away in some centralized fashion to disclose to the people the world, we are getting these requests. not just to say that we are getting these requests, but here is the nature of these requests. here is how many of them there are and roughly how to categorize them. of course, what action we took coming off of these. i guess without getting into too much detail regarding a lawsuit on a high level, it turns out

that there is a government, it is ours in the united states, that wanted to limit our ability as a company -- it is not just twitter users. there happened to be individual users that are impacted by this. if you are -- i would argue that if you are a user or just a member of this society, you have a right to know that your government is making requests of a private company like ours, and what we're doing with that. we should be able to disclose in a reasonable amount of detail, what are the boundaries of these requests? we had engaged in conversations about this in terms of being more transparent in our

transparency report. when we reached an impasse, we said that we will not abide by this. we will sue you over our ability to be more transparent with our users and people of the world. that is what motivated it. it continues to motivate it. there are other companies that share our aim. i think we took it another step and forced the issue. >> we had an earlier conversation about values. when one thinks about the culture and the shared values that make twitter what it is, i would imagine when you are making a decision about how to dress of lee pursue an issue like that, it does come back to fundamental values. can you talk about that

particular decision about values? gabriel: at the end of the day some of this is not all that complicated. we end up running the company on some golden rule type of way. as we conceive of and implement these policies, would we as users want to exist in a product that has these policies? by and large, that is what we are trying to do. if there is an environment surrounding us that is unfavorable, we try to change those things. i would say that some of these types of decisions, including the decision to sue our own government are pretty uncontroversial. i would say that we have pretty aligned values. we have gone about building out

a team. we have values. as a leadership team, we embody them. it is a responsibility. earlier, we were talking about the free speech movement. i believe that there are a handful of companies in the world, you can probably count them on two hands, that transcend just being companies. i think that twitter is one. with that, comes real responsibility. people are depending on us to achieve things that go far beyond business or just culture. it is actually achieving higher purpose. as we go about our business. these are fairly weighty things

that we are considering. >> it isn't interesting notion when an enterprise becomes a movement. twitter is that. how about the public offering of twitter? does the change in ownership and control change that? gabriel: when we were in the process of going public, there were many folks on the sidelines saying all of twitter's talk about being purpose driven, get ready, it is all going to go out the window. part of the significance of our lawsuit was eye-opening for many people. wow, these guys are going to stick to the values that they have had all along. the speculation that existed about how becoming a publicly traded company would change us, somehow, someway, this was the

conspiracy theory premise of it all. now that they become a publicly traded company beholden to investor interests they will sell out their values in order to it here to all of these financial pressures that existed all along. p.s. those pressures did not exist all along. it was never the case that the tension that we experienced day in and day out is something that we experienced between owners and business interests. the source of the tension was something that we talked about earlier. the tension between one group of users and another group of users . how do we navigate those waters? those tensions still exist. being a publicly traded company has done nothing to change our

values or how we have approached going about our work. it has brought a slightly brighter spotlight. for those of you who go out and be part of publicly traded companies, i hope you realize that it is yet another moment in the company's evolution when you go public and you wake up the next day and you go to work. that is how it is. >> what do you love most about your job? gabriel: the idea of it being a movement. i think you can work in any number of companies or organizations. there are a few opportunities that you have in life -- earlier before we were on stage we were talking about the four presteps

you have at the business school. i love the fourth one of beyond yourself. be inspiring plank in your platform. what i love about the work and have long been inspired by in technology generally is that if you are lucky, you get to be part of a company that is a movement beyond itself beyond any one of us. the impact that you get to have on this planet starts to go beyond, i went to work and i sold a widget versus i went to work and i changed the world for the better. it sounds trite. we got to see this. the technology in twitter's case takes on a life of its own. we use it in ways that we never anticipated. it is inspiring.

>> it absolutely is. this gentleman spoke to us not so long ago. he spoke across the street. he and i were walking back. one of our employees that had grown up in iran walked up to us. she talked about how influential twitter had been for her family. it was right there, someone that i see every day. you hear those stories often. gabriel: we hear them often and we see them unfolding. i spoke to a group of employees that just started yesterday. they asked, does this ever get old? do we ever come to work and do we ever get jaded by this

extraordinary thing happening? no, we do not get jaded. i came to work a few weeks ago and as a user, got to see somebody who is tweeting images of our planet drum geostationary orbit. that does not get old. no we never thought that these things would be used in this way. yeah it does change the world. now sometimes more trivial ways, too. >> absolutely. your job is to for than a lot of people's roles. on the personal advice front can you talk about some risks that you took that opened up some pathways that might not have been there in your career? gabriel: please, since another one of your planks is to

question the status quo, do not take my status quo as the gospel. now my responsibility at twitter is overseeing our public policy team and our media partnerships team. it is a departure from what i was doing early in my career, which was working on political campaigns. electoral politics is a perfectly noble profession. i think that the main insight that i had my hungert for participating in that process is facilitating for social change. what i realized at a certain point was the impact that i my self could have on that change was limited. i was livid -- living on the

east coast at that time. that is ewhere the changes happening very those are the people that are revolutionizing the world. i want to be part of that. once a deadly, it is not -- quince a dental he, it is not that i'm like what happened in the free speech movement where people were watching newsreels on the east coast about what was happening in berkeley and saying that i want to be part of that. the lesson, when i look back on it, i had known for some time, electoral politics, i was not getting out of it what i wanted to or needed to out of it. it took longer than it should have to make the change. i talked to people particularly

new grads who work with us. you may not be certain of what you're calling or passion is. in that case, keep experimenting. on the flipside, there are many people, they will say that i do not know what my calling is, but what i am doing is not that. yet they do not have the courage to make the change. the main lesson was, when i knew that was not my calling, that was probably a couple of years before i really owned that and i honored the fact that this was not the right path for me. >> part of that transition or any of us, the kernel of that notion of facilitating social change. we do not always know what that kernel is. once we identify the kernel,

then the options become clearer. gabriel: for me, part of the insight that i had came out of trying to create a little bit of instance from it and saying, what is it that i am doing? what is the pleasure i am deriving from this? is this the best venue for me to be living that out? even in the world of media and communications and public policy i didn't necessarily know that was the job for me. the insight that i had, it seems like technology was the general venue for me to live this out. >> great. great. gabriel, as a leader and a manager, what is your leadership style? how has your thinking on

leadership changed in the last few years? gabriel: my thinking on leadership and management is in some ways informed by my experience in political campaigns. if you were going to have -- first on management and then on leadership. if you were going to try to create a petri dish on how not to manage people, you would have created a political campaign. i am supposed to be fair. it has been a long time since i worked on a political campaign. let me give that the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe a lot has changed. at the time, in this country at least, it was. you have an environment where it is very transaction-based. you have a bunch of people that are trying to win something by a certain day. it does not lend something to

nurturing people over a long period of time and invest in their careers and growth. it is transactional in that way. for me, so much of my approach to management and then more broadly, leadership, was informed i what i did not want to do. i think the beauty of the technology industry is that you and up getting a lot less experienced people who bring really, really new ideas to the table. if you can embrace that, i would say to the question of my leadership style, i really try to give people a ton of room to make a lot of small mistakes. i believe that as leaders and managers some time from now you could have someone else on this

stage that says that i want people to fail. it is easy to say. you cannot just say that. especially for less experienced people, you need to go out of your way to force them to make mistakes. i remember, i had somebody who worked for me who was so risk averse. i said that you really need to make mistakes. you need to be taking more risks. we had these quarterly objectives and measurable goals. a lot of companies have these things. i said, here is what will happen for you when you set out your quarterly goals? i want you to put in there that you will make a certain amount of mistakes. we will refer to the mistakes you made and what you learn from them. unless you were really deliberate with them on this, it

is not going to happen. my thought is, encouraging people to take risks. encouraging them to make mistakes and having an understanding that they are unable to make catastrophic mistakes. if somebody working for you makes a catastrophic mistake, that is your responsibility as a leader that you put them in a position where they could make a catastrophic mistake to begin with. you can put them in a position to make small learning mistakes. if there is something that is cataclysmic happening on your watch, it is up to you to take responsibility or it. >> those are >> and those are the stretch assignments as well. one of our faculty, a nobel prize winner, he was giving a speech, a commencement speech.

he mentioned that he has a phd student, in this case. a project he was describing that he wanted the phd student to do good the student said, i do not know if i could do that. and he said, i would not have asked you to do it if i did not think you could do it. there is a profoundly validating element of pushing people that is a great management style in itself. can i ask you one more question about culture and then we will open it up to the floor? we have a lot of questions and thoughts in the room. when you think about your goal on the senior team in helping to shape, strengthen, and keep healthy the culture, the norms and values within twitter, can you say a little bit about how you think about that part of your role, that inward-facing role? gabriel: